From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 17 19:16:20 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA21103
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 1995 19:16:20 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA21095
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 17 May 1995 19:16:14 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <226>; Wed, 17 May 1995 19:30:51 -0700
Date: 	Wed, 17 May 1995 19:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@haven.uniserve.com>
To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940? 
In-Reply-To: <199505160117.SAA14306@estienne.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950517192321.5578C-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 15 May 1995, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:

> >  Is it just me, or is the 2940 slower than the 1742 and 2742?
> >
> >  (BTW, I'm running a kernel supped last week)
> >
> >Tom
> 
> I'll let you know once I get my Pentium machine. :)  I don't see 
> any reason why it would be slower than a 2742.

  I swapped a ASUS AMD486DX4100 PCI with a 2940, for a AMI 486DX266 EISA 
with a 2742, and found that "iozone auto" would give consistently better
results.  Running top and running two dd's or two iozone's revealed that EISA
system was using less system and interrupt time for the same job.
I used a almost current kerenel and the same drives for both.

Tom