2009/9/9 Arnold Krille <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arnold@arnoldarts.de">arnold@arnoldarts.de</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wednesday 09 September 2009 09:25:28 Ray Rashif wrote:<br>
> Or maybe hdparm -Tt $disk on one with ntfs-3g and other with ext3, look out<br>
> for any significant difference.<br>
<br>
</div>As far as I know hdparm tests are independent of the filesystem. At least here<br>
I can also test directly on disks via /dev/sda or on unformatted disks...<br>
<br>
If you want the performance of the filesystem, you have to run a real<br>
benchmark.<br>
<br>
Also, don't format one disk with ext3 and one with ntfs and compare these and<br>
claim a "true" result. Because then you haven't compared ext3 with ntfs but<br>
"ext3 on disk1" with "ntfs on disk2". Before saying anything about the<br>
results, you have to also do "ext3 on disk2" and "ntfs on disk1".<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Arnold<br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Linux-audio-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org">Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user" target="_blank">http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user</a><br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, you're right, hdparm is raw r/w and sees no FS. Slipped my mind for a moment.<br></div><div><br></div><div>You can have one extra disk for this benchmark, and time operations on them. Might want to follow <a href="http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388">http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388</a> as closely as possible, with the exception that you're comparing only two of them. I might try this on an external disk, where the bottleneck is the USB/interface speed, but FS differences can still be observed.</div>