https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229914 ------- Comment #5 from bjoern.wahl@hospital-borken.de 2007-01-15 02:57 MST ------- Created an attachment (id=112945) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=112945&action=view) More info Okay, here's the reason why I'm still confused. * In the first report, you're mixing /dev/sdX and /dev/hdX. They are driven by two completely separate driver stacks, so you need to isolate them. Thats right, I just wanted to point out that hdparm shows that the hdd (sata) is really slow.. The bug is only about sata hdds OpenSuse 10.2. * In the info you posted in the previous comment, suse 10.2 shows normal performance of 61.68MB/s buffered disk reads. In the first report, the problematic device is /dev/hdb but it isn't present on boot messages of both 10.1 and 10.2. Well, what was supprising me is that the hdd (sda) seems to be slower when using 10.2 than using 10.1. 10.2: /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 1440 MB in 2.00 seconds = 719.95 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 186 MB in 3.03 seconds = 61.47 MB/sec 10.1: /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 2964 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1483.99 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 180 MB in 3.00 seconds = 59.97 MB/sec Look at the cached Reads!!! If you're talking about performance difference in 'Timing cached reads', that's not a driver problem. Correct! It's determined by VM. What das VM mean ? Virual Machine ? ISTR related discussion on LKML What does ISTR mean and LKML ?? but cannot find it at the moment, but I would be surprised if that has any bearing on real world performance. Keep in mind that hdparm's cached read test is as synthetic as a benchmark can get. I also thought about that. But first I had the subjectiv impression that the hdd was much slower and than i started hdparm to check if my impression was right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.