9 Sep
2009
9 Sep
'09
8:05 a.m.
2009/9/9 Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
On Wednesday 09 September 2009 09:25:28 Ray Rashif
wrote:
No, you're right, hdparm is raw r/w and sees no FS. Slipped my mind for a
moment.
You can have one extra disk for this benchmark, and time operations on them.
Might want to follow http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 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.
Or maybe hdparm -Tt $disk on one with ntfs-3g and
other with ext3, look
out
for any significant difference.
As far as I know hdparm tests are independent of the filesystem. At least
here
I can also test directly on disks via /dev/sda or on unformatted disks...
If you want the performance of the filesystem, you have to run a real
benchmark.
Also, don't format one disk with ext3 and one with ntfs and compare these
and
claim a "true" result. Because then you haven't compared ext3 with ntfs
but
"ext3 on disk1" with "ntfs on disk2". Before saying anything about
the
results, you have to also do "ext3 on disk2" and "ntfs on disk1".
Arnold
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user