Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Crappy SATA performance on asus p5q

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Delete all data: boot from a livecd, cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda

    That only writes one pass with pseudo-random data, if you'd like more, DBAN has a good selection.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ivanovic View Post
    Yes, 100% sure. The 750GB model is based on 3 250GB pattern where the 640GB is based on 2 320GB pattern. The size per patter might be a little higher and not deactivated to serve as "backup space" for those areas that tend to get damaged over time, so in fact the patterns might be 340GB or something like this.

    What stays is that the 320, 640 and 1000GB drives are built upon the same patters. So they are more dense and the header has to move less while reading (and moving the read head takes a huge potion of time needed for reading/writing).
    Well I have just changed the drive to the 1TB and this is from hdparm

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 5132 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2566.77 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 274 MB in 3.01 seconds = 90.91 MB/sec

    Still a little bit short of what you are getting. and not that much better than the 750. Any ideas.

    Dan

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM USA
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Looks pretty nominal to me. What do you think you should be getting?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbmorse View Post
    Looks pretty nominal to me. What do you think you should be getting?
    Well if you read the previous message ivanovic is getting 107 MB/Sec from his samsung sata 300 disk.

    That would be nice.

    Dan

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    So with the exact same model of HD (correct?) ivanovic is getting 107MB/s and Dan Harris is getting 91MB/s.

    What motherboards, kernel versions, and IO schedulers are you two using?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StringCheesian View Post
    So with the exact same model of HD (correct?) ivanovic is getting 107MB/s and Dan Harris is getting 91MB/s.

    What motherboards, kernel versions, and IO schedulers are you two using?
    I am using debian lenny 2.6.26-amd64 motherboard asus p5q as for scheduler I think I am using the following.

    [ 1.041322] io scheduler cfq registered (default)

    My HDD SAMSUNG HD103UJ so yes both same

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harris; 10-13-2008 at 03:12 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Harris View Post
    I am using debian lenny 2.6.26-amd64 motherboard asus p5q as for scheduler I think I am using the following.

    [ 1.041322] io scheduler cfq registered (default)

    My HDD SAMSUNG HD103UJ so yes both same

    Dan
    After about 6 hours of use last night the HD performance got progressively better and this morning hdparm show the following

    /dev/sda:
    Timing cached reads: 4942 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2471.38 MB/sec
    Timing buffered disk reads: 326 MB in 3.00 seconds = 108.58 MB/sec

    so all is well now. I guess a new hdd need running in for several hours to get it up to its best performance. I must admit when I was getting results as low as 78 MB/Sec I thought that I had a dud but a few hours later and all it well.

    Thanks for all your help and info.

    Dan

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Although not directly related, here is something I experienced. I have a Gigabyte EP43-DS3L mobo with ICH10. And using a a seagate sata2 500gb hard disk - ST3500320AS. There is something funny about the AHCI controller. With kernels 2.6.26 and older, with AHCI turned on, I used to get 55MB/s and with AHCI off, I get 110MB/s. (Note that the SATA controller is enabled in both cases in the bios.) However, in Windows, it was 110MB/s in both cases. With latest kernel 2.6.27, it was fixed and now I get close to 110MB/s with AHCI enabled too. (The only thing I hate about enabling AHCI is that some crappy intel ahci bios application called iSrc takes more time at starting up, than an entire os bootup possibly.)

    The only difference I see between 2.6.26 and 2.6.27 is that in dmesg output, I now see a new extension called 'ems' :
    ahci 0000:00:1f.2: AHCI 0001.0200 32 slots 6 ports 3 Gbps 0x3f impl SATA mode
    ahci 0000:00:1f.2: flags: 64bit ncq sntf stag pm led clo pmp pio slum part ems
    In general, I haven't seen any benefit of this AHCI regarding performance on any machine - including my notebooks with ich7m and ich8m. May be just some power saving or such.
    Last edited by hdas; 10-14-2008 at 06:42 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •