Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!fernwood!decwrl!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Micropolis HDs & WD1006V-SR2 RLL 1:1 Controllers
Summary: These benchmarks leave much to be desired
Keywords: MFM, RLL, WD, M1335, M1323
Message-ID: <37@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 28 May 90 22:34:29 GMT
References: <60997@sgi.sgi.com>
Reply-To: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Distribution: na
Organization: IRS - ACI Project Office
Lines: 21

In article <60997@sgi.sgi.com> fanj@remb6489.wpd.sgi.com (Fan Jiao) writes:
>I ran SI on C:, and the index is 3.6, compared with 2.7 in MFM 3:1 case.
>I also did CORETEST.  The transfer rate now is 672 KB/sec, while it was
>162 before.

With the exception of the seek time figures, I don't lend much credence
to CORETEST results. The throughput analysis appears to use large block
data streams (usually 32K or 64K) whereas most applications and operating
systems use .5K - 2K transfers. The presence of software disk cache will
also skew results so much they become meaningless. With version 2.8 they
at least recognize the use of cache, but results are still worthless.

Norton's SI doesn't appear to be anything special where disk measurements
are concerned.

One interesting benchmarker I've come across comes from Western Digital
and Columbia Data. It's called TESTDISK. One of the nice things about it
is that it measures throughput for a RANGE of block sizes.

I'm currently waiting for SEABENCH from Seagate. Don't know if Segate or
Imprimis (now absorbed by Seagate) developed it.