[Flashbench] Results for Sandisk class 4 "SDHC card"
Arnd Bergmann
arnd at arndb.de
Mon Apr 4 22:17:14 UTC 2011
On Monday 04 April 2011, Sascha Silbe wrote:
> Excerpts from Arnd Bergmann's message of Mon Apr 04 17:12:49 +0200 2011:
> > Ah, right, sorry about that. It needs to be 3072.
> >
> > Also, better apply this patch to make sure that everything starts at
> > multiples of three.
>
> Without your patch 1.5MB EBS seems like a good bet:
>
> align 805306368 pre 5.42ms on 6.23ms post 2.87ms diff 2.08ms
> align 402653184 pre 5.41ms on 5.98ms post 2.86ms diff 1.85ms
> align 201326592 pre 5.58ms on 6.19ms post 2.87ms diff 1.96ms
> align 100663296 pre 4.6ms on 5.89ms post 2.87ms diff 2.16ms
> align 50331648 pre 5.08ms on 6.23ms post 2.87ms diff 2.26ms
> align 25165824 pre 5.32ms on 6.23ms post 2.84ms diff 2.15ms
> align 12582912 pre 4.3ms on 6.23ms post 2.86ms diff 2.65ms
> align 6291456 pre 4.77ms on 6.18ms post 2.58ms diff 2.5ms
> align 3145728 pre 3.9ms on 5.56ms post 2.58ms diff 2.32ms
> align 1572864 pre 5.36ms on 6.03ms post 2.59ms diff 2.05ms
> align 786432 pre 3.26ms on 3.47ms post 2.6ms diff 536µs
> align 393216 pre 3.35ms on 3.42ms post 2.58ms diff 456µs
> align 196608 pre 3.34ms on 3.43ms post 2.57ms diff 478µs
> align 98304 pre 3.26ms on 3.42ms post 2.57ms diff 506µs
> align 49152 pre 3.32ms on 3.45ms post 2.57ms diff 509µs
> align 24576 pre 3.31ms on 3.4ms post 2.57ms diff 462µs
> align 12288 pre 3.25ms on 2.9ms post 2.75ms diff -106663
> align 6144 pre 2.6ms on 2.55ms post 2.68ms diff -86041n
Ok, that is pretty clear.
>
> With your patch applied however the results are a bit odd:
>
> align 603979776 pre 5.46ms on 5.85ms post 2.86ms diff 1.69ms
> align 402653184 pre 5.54ms on 5.85ms post 2.85ms diff 1.66ms
> align 301989888 pre 5.09ms on 6.09ms post 2.86ms diff 2.12ms
> align 201326592 pre 5.48ms on 6.12ms post 2.87ms diff 1.95ms
> align 150994944 pre 5.46ms on 6.08ms post 2.85ms diff 1.93ms
> align 100663296 pre 5.19ms on 6.12ms post 2.87ms diff 2.09ms
> align 75497472 pre 4.56ms on 5.94ms post 2.85ms diff 2.24ms
> align 50331648 pre 5.69ms on 6.03ms post 2.87ms diff 1.75ms
> align 37748736 pre 4.69ms on 6.12ms post 2.86ms diff 2.35ms
> align 25165824 pre 4.94ms on 6.14ms post 2.86ms diff 2.24ms
> align 18874368 pre 5.45ms on 6.15ms post 2.86ms diff 2ms
> align 12582912 pre 4.97ms on 6.08ms post 2.85ms diff 2.17ms
> align 9437184 pre 5.01ms on 5.59ms post 2.85ms diff 1.66ms
> align 6291456 pre 5.45ms on 6.07ms post 2.67ms diff 2.01ms
> align 4718592 pre 5.18ms on 5.67ms post 2.67ms diff 1.74ms
> align 3145728 pre 5.2ms on 5.66ms post 2.67ms diff 1.73ms
> align 2359296 pre 3.39ms on 3.53ms post 2.67ms diff 500µs
> align 1572864 pre 5.32ms on 5.95ms post 2.68ms diff 1.95ms
> align 1179648 pre 3.5ms on 3.53ms post 2.68ms diff 442µs
> align 786432 pre 3.42ms on 3.57ms post 2.68ms diff 522µs
> align 589824 pre 3.4ms on 3.56ms post 2.65ms diff 535µs
> align 393216 pre 3.47ms on 3.57ms post 2.67ms diff 500µs
> align 294912 pre 3.4ms on 3.54ms post 2.66ms diff 511µs
> align 196608 pre 3.36ms on 3.55ms post 2.66ms diff 538µs
> align 147456 pre 3.38ms on 3.6ms post 2.67ms diff 575µs
> align 98304 pre 3.44ms on 3.57ms post 2.67ms diff 515µs
> align 73728 pre 3.46ms on 3.51ms post 2.68ms diff 445µs
> align 49152 pre 3.32ms on 3.55ms post 2.66ms diff 560µs
> align 36864 pre 3.4ms on 2.98ms post 2.85ms diff -143939
> align 24576 pre 3.41ms on 3.51ms post 2.66ms diff 484µs
> align 18432 pre 3.43ms on 3.49ms post 3.48ms diff 35.3µs
> align 12288 pre 3.32ms on 2.98ms post 2.85ms diff -105911
> align 9216 pre 2.75ms on 2.84ms post 3.14ms diff -104004
> align 6144 pre 2.68ms on 2.64ms post 2.75ms diff -69256n
>
>
> Note the times for 1.5, 2.25 and 3 MB. Around 24k it's also a bit off.
I should have made clearer that with the patch applied, you no longer need to
pass an odd blocksize, but again use 1024 byte blocks with the -a test, though
not the --open-au test. The test above tries both power-of-two multiples of
the block size and three times those values.
Arnd
More information about the Flashbench-results
mailing list