By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
walsufnir on 12 April 2013
Edit Thread
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

I understand... You can have any opinion on my pic, doesn't make it false. It stays where it is: HDD much faster than BDD. No chance to spin this. And lol, ethomaz: hdparm is bad for benchmarking, at least do "hdparm -tT --direct /dev/sda". And you are using a 2,5"-drive ;) But they are also way faster than bdd.

hdparm -tT --direct /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 248 MB in 2.02 seconds = 122.80 MB/sec
Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 354 MB in 3.01 seconds = 117.55 MB/sec

Same with direct... 112 to 117 is just because the moment of the test... what I'm saying these benchs are just for few seconds... use the HD Tach to you see (I don't have windows do make the test).

Can you share some app for Linux to do long HDD read benchs?

PS. It is the four time I said I was wrong about the BD/HDD thing... did you really read my posts?

 

I can :) But what do you want to prove? Do you still deny that an hdd is slower than 6xbdd?

"dd if=/dev/zero of=benchfile count=1024 bs=1M conv=fdatasync,notrunc" you can try. And when using ubuntu it has a builtin benchmark tool: gnome-disks.