Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!iisat!kevin
From: kevin@iisat.uucp (Kevin Davies)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: If you have Xenix 386, run this for me
Message-ID: <1991Jan17.235659.7122@iisat.uucp>
Date: 17 Jan 91 23:56:59 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.094432.21159@eng.ufl.edu> <10988@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: International Information System
Lines: 32

In article <10988@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>, bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Carmen Hardina) writes:
> In article <1991Jan16.094432.21159@eng.ufl.edu> jc@joker.mil.ufl.edu (Jim Castleberry) writes:
> >As much as I despise benchmark hype, I hate to ask this, but I'm
> >looking at a throughput problem and need a reference.
> [....]
> >controller type, and disk type if you know them.  I expect it to take
> >between 10 seconds and 2 minutes.
> >
> >I have 1 MFM drive and 1 SCSI (on separate controllers).  Both drives
> >do only 93k per second out of a possible 400+!  Is Xenix really that
> >slow???
> >
> ...
> ...................  That's approximately 286K per second.  The Adaptec
> is rated at about 900K/Sec. and utilities like The Power Meter under
> DOS reaffirm that fact.  That's a big difference in speed between the
> two operating systems.

To make things more accurate to a 'hardware' level, which is what
most of these utilities do, you should use /dev/hd00 and not /dev/rhd00
I did just a quickie test of ~2.7MB and got the following :
	/dev/hd00 -- ~ 13s
	/dev/rhd00 - ~ 33s

I think this accounts for the large difference. hd00 is the block
device, which is faster than the character device of rhd00


-- 
Kevin Davies		International Information Service (IIS)
UUCP:  {uunet,utai,watmath}!dalcs!iisat!kevin
Bitnet/Uucp: kevin@iisat.uucp