Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!tsunami.Berkeley.EDU!phr
From: phr@tsunami.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,connect.audit
Subject: Re: Conner 200M IDE drive
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.052458.16196@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 91 05:24:58 GMT
References: <1991Apr3.035310.11481@jwt.UUCP> <PHR.91Apr3023701@lightning.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Apr4.040424.13848@jwt.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: UC Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Lines: 28

In article <1991Apr4.040424.13848@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes:
>In article <PHR.91Apr3023701@lightning.Berkeley.EDU> phr@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
>>I get 645k/sec from my CP3204 (Norton sysinfo benchmark).
>
>What exactly does the Norton benchmark do?  Did you have any software
>cacheing enabled when you ran it?  I do find it interesting that the
>result obtained by Norton is nearly 50% slower than what Coretest
>quotes, though.

I don't know what the Norton benchmark does, but the disk makes a lot
of noise while the benchmark is running, so it can't be simply reading
from the on-drive cache repeatedly.  I did not have any software
caching enabled.

Throughput on a Unix system using this same drive is comparable:
around 150k/sec to copy one large file to another using "dd".  Because
both the old file is being read and the new one being written, and
because the Unix file system imposes some overhead and because the
files are not necessarily contiguous on the disk, I think this is
consistent with the 645k/sec transfer speed from the disk.

>>A friend of mine has measured 1.1MB/sec from a similar (non-Conner)
>>200MB drive on a 486-33 system.
>
>What benchmark was used to measure this transfer rate?

Norton sysinfo again.