🚀 go-pugleaf

John Kotches <jkotches@pobox.com> wrote in article
<348AD346.D2E0CB00@pobox.com>...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>  
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > You keep making these claims about how great EIDE is.  Would you
> > > mind pointing us towards some benchmarks which validate your
> > > claims?  As it is, you're statements are just words on the screen
> > > with no backup to establish validity to them.
> > 
> > See:  http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/9892/nt4.htm
>  
> Ok, I went there.  It talks about 2 EIDE drives in a RAID 0
> configuration.  Quite frankly, the results were unimpressive.
> Besides that, This discussion is about single drive performance
> not RAID 0.
> 
> Then I see that CPU utilizations to get these "marvelous" transfer
> rates (8 and I just shake my head.....
> 
> 37.96% to achieve 8.09 MB/sec.  That means almost 2 out of
> every 5 cycles are dedicated to disk I/O.
> 
> By the time you add in the 1-2 cycles for NT to do its housekeeping
> you aren't left with a lot of CPU horsepower to do any actual work.
> 
> Nice try.


Go read it again.  There are single drive results as well as RAID 0 results
or did you actually read the page.  What kind of CPU utilizations do you
think busmastering SCSI gets?  If you'll read Adaptec's Threadmark
documentation then you'll find that all CPU utilization figures are
meaningful as % per MB/sec or didn't you know that.  The results at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/9892/nt4.htm
demonstrate the busmastering EIDE provides similar low CPU utilization to
SCSI.

Regards,

Ron Reaugh