Article View: comp.os.msdos.misc
Article #3749Re: SCSI performance / Adaptec vs Seagate
From: Drew Eckhardt
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:58
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:58
45 lines
2582 bytes
2582 bytes
In article <C1FwFo.G63@jti.com> richb@jti.com (Richard Braun) writes: >Using a simplistic disk performance test program provided by a drive >manufacturer, I came up with the following surprising result: > > The 8-bit Seagate ST02 is nearly 3 times faster than the > 16-bit bus-mastering Adaptec 1542A. > >The program measures transfer rate, average seek time, track-to-track >seek time, and a so-called "performance index". With the drive >low-level formatted for the Seagate's disk geometry, I get 3.5ms >track-to-track time and a 30 performance index. Reformatted for the >Adaptec, the numbers are 4.9ms and 11.6. > >Why might this be? Is it the different head/sector mapping (64 vs. 63 >heads, I think), or is the Adaptec just plain slower? Is it possible/helpful >to optimize the controller/device driver to match the physical disk >characteristics (15 heads, 1632 cylinders)? > Seek tests done via BIOS for IDE and SCSI disks are completely bogus. A track->track seek may not go off of the current track if the logical # of sectors per track > the real #. SCSI supports a seek command, but a disk doesn't have to do ANYTHING when it sees it. The BIOS on the controller doesn't have to do ANYTHING. As far as transfer rate, not using the hardware handshaking on the Seagate (enabled with the 0ws jumper), being "safe" and checking the SCSI status bits, you won't be able to transfer at > ~600K/sec. I know the adaptec has no problems above those speeds. Benchmarks need to be taken with a grain of salt, and need to be relevant. Finally, the Adaptec has more intelligence than the seagate, so you won't waste serious amounts of time in the kernel manually twiddling the SCSI bus. This will leave more time available for user processes, and your interactive performance on a real OS will be VASTLY superior to what the Seagate can give you. -- Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit. | Drew Eckhardt Condemn Colorado for Amendment Two. | drew@cs.colorado.edu Use Linux, the fast, flexible, and free 386 unix |
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan27.035844.14556@colorado.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!boulder!romeo!drewReferences:
<C1FwFo.G63@jti.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!boulder!romeo!drew From: drew@romeo.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: SCSI performance / Adaptec vs Seagate Message-ID: <1993Jan27.035844.14556@colorado.edu> Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet) Nntp-Posting-Host: romeo.cs.colorado.edu Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder References: <C1FwFo.G63@jti.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:58:44 GMT Lines: 45