Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!frambo.dec.com!schabacker
From: schabacker@frambo.dec.com (Tim, posting for C. Balzer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: A HD controller review (part 2, Supra)
Message-ID: <8811011538.AA14130@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: 1 Nov 88 15:38:25 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 68


Hi folks,

Here are the promised results for the Supra controller, as I managed
with the help of their tech support to install a FFS partition using
the standard mount command. An error in the 5.1 Supra software .ARC
file made these tests impossible for the original review.

----------
Supra DMA 2000 controller with Rodime 3085S, FFS.
With Blitzdisk, standard environment:

File create/delete:	create 13 files/sec, delete 43 files/sec
Directory scan:		87 entries/sec
Seek/read test:		82 seek/reads per second
r/w speed:		buf 512 bytes, rd 59578 byte/sec, wr 25206 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 4096 bytes, rd 163840 byte/sec, wr 131072 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 8192 bytes, rd 262144 byte/sec, wr 174762 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 32768 bytes, rd 436906 byte/sec, wr 262144 byte/sec

Without Blitzdisk:

File create/delete:	create 13 files/sec, delete 28 files/sec
Directory scan:		86 entries/sec
Seek/read test:		80 seek/reads per second
r/w speed:		buf 512 bytes, rd 59578 byte/sec, wr 25206 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 4096 bytes, rd 163840 byte/sec, wr 131072 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 8192 bytes, rd 262144 byte/sec, wr 187245 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 32768 bytes, rd 436906 byte/sec, wr 262144 byte/sec

Without Blitzdisk, running "alone":

File create/delete:	create 15 files/sec, delete 30 files/sec
Directory scan:		102 entries/sec
Seek/read test:		90 seek/reads per second
r/w speed:		buf 512 bytes, rd 65536 byte/sec, wr 27594 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 4096 bytes, rd 174762 byte/sec, wr 145635 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 8192 bytes, rd 291271 byte/sec, wr 218453 byte/sec
r/w speed:		buf 32768 bytes, rd 436906 byte/sec, wr 291271 byte/sec
----------

The above results are relativly close to that of the 2090(a) (about
20% slower), but since the Supra is also a DMA controller, that was
to be expected. A major fault in their hardware/software design is
IMHO the fact that they "take over" (freeze) the system during data
transfer. The 2090(a) currently performs better or equal with a
considerably lower CPU and bus usage. Perfmon showed during the Supra
diskperfs a solid 100% CPU usage, while the 2090 only used about 50%
(with a "standard" usage of 25% in my environment, thats only a 25%
additional usage).

NO, I'm not the new CBM propaganda department nor a leftover from
the dirtspitting Bush campaign, these tests and their results were
obtained by an unbribed and free mind. Feel free to do it yourself...

To those of you who missed the original (initial) posting or
thoughtlessly discarded this brilliant work :-), I offer to email the
complete review. InterNet/ARPA style addresses preferred.

Keep your comments coming in,

- <CB>
--  _  _
 / /  | \ \  <CB> aka Christian Balzer  - The Software Brewery -
< <   |-<  > decwrl!frambo.dec.com!schabacker OR schabacker@frambo.dec.com
 \ \_ |_/ /  CIS: 71001,210 (be brief!), Phone: +49 6150 4151
------------ Snail: Im Wingertsberg 45, D-6108 Weiterstadt, F.R.G.
"Another hope, another dream, another truth, installed by the machine"
	From the song "P-Machinery" by Propaganda.