Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!unifax!sl
From: sl@unifax.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Simple disk benchmark results
Message-ID: <152@unifax.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jun 89 18:14:47 GMT
References: <9468@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <3627@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: sl@.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 21

In article <3627@ddsw1.MCS.COM> nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn) writes:
>In article <9468@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>>Sys      Opsys        Drive    Inter   Systime    KBytes/sec
>>
>>'386     Interactive  Maxtor   WD1006  17.4       400
>>'386	 AT&T 3.2     CDC      WD1007   9.4 	  319

>I have a problem here. Is systime supposed to be the time we're
>measuring?  If so, these numbers can't be right (inconsistent
>kb/sec results).  I must be missing something.

Presumably you are seeing the difference between the standard 3.2 filesystem
and the fast file system as implemented for 3.2 by Interactive. 

Rumour has it that their driver and file system can utilize full track reads
effectively when a board which can do efficent full track reads is installed
(yes current WD1007's can do full track reads on 1:1 interleave format).


-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)