Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 8 Oct 1995 09:48:03 +1000
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, se@zpr.uni-koeln.de
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: VLB Disk Controllers
Message-ID:  <199510072348.JAA07022@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>} >Seems the NCR is faster on 512 byte transfers.
>} 
>} Nope, the 573 us is for _8_ transfers of 512 bytes because my drive
>} doesn't support multi-mode, and it's on a slower machine :-).  I'm
>} surprised that it is as high as 573/8 = 72 us per command.  This is all
>} host software (not bus related) overhead except for about 10 usec to
>} write the command to the controller.

>Don't think so. There are 16 transfers in the 8KB test,
>and thus the per sector overhead is in fact accounted
>for in the transfer rate !

That's true for IDE, but not for SCSI.  The NCR would be much slower if
it was forced to issue 7 more commands per 4K.  That's part of its
advantage.  However, multi-sector transfers for IDE might give the
same advantage to IDE.  The reduction in the command overhead would not
be 7 * 72, it would be 7 * (72 - drive_overhead_per_sector).  It's
likely that the drive processor is slower than an i486 and possible that
the drive processor+firmware is slower than an i486+software.  Thus the
reduction may be negative :-).  Actually :-(.

>} 	   512		 168550
>}...
>} 	262144		5557452

>This was measured using raw device reads ?

Yes, on the inner tracks.

>Ok. Using my 2GB Atlas (dd, 30 sec each):

>	   512		 811800
>	  1024		1324517
>	  2048		2097152
>	  4096		4194304
>	 16384		6068148
>	 65536		7281777

dd is not so good for this sort of test because the time for outputtinh
to /dev/null is significant.  Both my benchmark and dd have granularity
problems - they count the time in seconds.  They should use gettimeofday()
instead of time().

>(BTW: I've got 1585 transfers/s in the 512 byte test.
>That's 630 us per *transfer*. And the startup overhead
>can't possibly be higher :)

The NCR seems to be a bit faster than the Adaptec 2842.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510072348.JAA07022>