Hello again,
I have another device to test:
# Product info:
http://www.transcend-info.com/Products/CatList.asp?ModNo=274
$ lsusb
Bus 001 Device 006: ID 8564:1000
$ fdisk -l /dev/sdb
Disk /dev/sdb: 32.5 GB, 32451330048 bytes
16 heads, 48 sectors/track, 82528 cylinders, total 63381504 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0xc3072e18
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 * 18160 63381503 31681672 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
# This is with factory partitioning
$ sudo flashbench -a /dev/sdb --blocksize=1024 --count=100
align 8589934592 pre 528µs on 603µs post 547µs diff
65.8µs
align 4294967296 pre 523µs on 575µs post 522µs diff
52.5µs
align 2147483648 pre 550µs on 635µs post 551µs diff
84.2µs
align 1073741824 pre 573µs on 640µs post 565µs diff
71.2µs
align 536870912 pre 543µs on 608µs post 562µs diff 55.3µs
align 268435456 pre 536µs on 574µs post 530µs diff 40.9µs
align 134217728 pre 558µs on 607µs post 549µs diff 53.1µs
align 67108864 pre 532µs on 577µs post 515µs diff 53.6µs
align 33554432 pre 568µs on 629µs post 561µs diff 64.6µs
align 16777216 pre 536µs on 598µs post 533µs diff 63.4µs
align 8388608 pre 556µs on 619µs post 556µs diff 62.7µs
align 4194304 pre 566µs on 620µs post 539µs diff 67.5µs
align 2097152 pre 565µs on 604µs post 567µs diff 38µs
align 1048576 pre 568µs on 606µs post 567µs diff 38.7µs
align 524288 pre 563µs on 602µs post 562µs diff 39.7µs
align 262144 pre 567µs on 596µs post 551µs diff 37.5µs
align 131072 pre 564µs on 594µs post 553µs diff 35.6µs
align 65536 pre 553µs on 594µs post 563µs diff 35.3µs
align 32768 pre 555µs on 596µs post 563µs diff 36.6µs
align 16384 pre 557µs on 595µs post 566µs diff 33.4µs
align 8192 pre 561µs on 572µs post 553µs diff 15.1µs
align 4096 pre 556µs on 566µs post 565µs diff 6.04µs
align 2048 pre 553µs on 565µs post 568µs diff 4.85µs
# Okay, I think this indicates 4MB erase blocks (and 16kB page size), so let's
try it with open AUs
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=1 --random
4MiB 17.7M/s
2MiB 17.8M/s
1MiB 17.8M/s
512KiB 2.49M/s
256KiB 17.2M/s
128KiB 16M/s
64KiB 13M/s
32KiB 2.19M/s
16KiB 6.37M/s
8KiB 2.54M/s
4KiB 825K/s
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=4 --random
Password:
4MiB 17.5M/s
2MiB 17.3M/s
1MiB 4.29M/s
512KiB 4.31M/s
256KiB 16.5M/s
128KiB 14.4M/s
64KiB 4M/s
32KiB 3.42M/s
16KiB 5.74M/s
8KiB 1.68M/s
4KiB 785K/s
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=6 --random
4MiB 17.5M/s
2MiB 17M/s
1MiB 3.47M/s
512KiB 16.5M/s
256KiB 16.4M/s
128KiB 13M/s
64KiB 3.24M/s
32KiB 8.26M/s
16KiB 5.68M/s
8KiB 1.3M/s
4KiB 786K/s
# Seems OK so far, but the speed randomly drops under different sizes between
tests, sometimes it's a bit shaky like this:
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=6 --random
4MiB 5.8M/s
2MiB 17.3M/s
1MiB 3.47M/s
512KiB 15.9M/s
256KiB 5.52M/s
128KiB 12.8M/s
64KiB 3.24M/s
32KiB 8.19M/s
16KiB 3.43M/s
8KiB 1.52M/s
4KiB 775K/s
# Does this indicate something or it's just device's feature?
# With more open AUs it's slow, also with bigger erase size
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=7 --random
4MiB 2.51M/s
2MiB 1.37M/s
1MiB 711K/s
512KiB 362K/s
^C
# Here it's clear...
$ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[8*1024*1024] --
blocksize=$[4*1024] --open-au-nr=6 --random
8MiB 5.93M/s
4MiB 4.38M/s
2MiB 17.4M/s
1MiB 4.34M/s
512KiB 16M/s
256KiB 4.21M/s
128KiB 13.8M/s
64KiB 3.97M/s
32KiB 8.26M/s
16KiB 2.88M/s
# But here I'm not sure, I think it should me much slower if the erase size is
4MB, becouse it would use two erase blocks. So maybe erase size is bigger than
4MB?
On Monday 03 September 2012, Jaroslav Martínek wrote:
>
> Okay, so I did some further tests:
>
> $ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[16*1024*1024] --
> blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=1
> Password:
> 16MiB 5.2M/s
> 8MiB 18M/s
> 4MiB 18M/s
> 2MiB 17.3M/s
> 1MiB 17.4M/s
> 512KiB 16.9M/s
> 256KiB 15.9M/s
> 128KiB 15.1M/s
> 64KiB 13.4M/s
> 32KiB 9.98M/s
> 16KiB 6.46M/s
>
> $ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[16*1024*1024] --
> blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=3
> 16MiB 8.13M/s
> 8MiB 17.9M/s
> 4MiB 17.3M/s
> 2MiB 17.5M/s
> 1MiB 17.3M/s
> 512KiB 17M/s
> 256KiB 15.7M/s
> 128KiB 14.7M/s
> 64KiB 13.1M/s
> 32KiB 9.64M/s
> 16KiB 6.13M/s
>
> # So far good...
>
> $ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[16*1024*1024] --
> blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=4
> 16MiB 8.16M/s
> 8MiB 3.76M/s
> 4MiB 4.92M/s
> 2MiB 5.25M/s
> 1MiB 4.8M/s
> 512KiB 4.76M/s
> 256KiB 4.67M/s
> 128KiB 4.59M/s
> 64KiB 4.38M/s
> 32KiB 3.9M/s
> 16KiB 3.17M/s
>
> # Here it gets much worse, so I would assume, that thist drive can handle 3
> open AUs if the 16 MB erase size is correct? Also note that on the biggest
> size (16 MB) it's slow, but only for the first run, why's that? If repeated,
> it stays on full speed until I change erase size:
What makes one run slow is the garbage collection that happens because of
the state the drive is already in. Writing in small units can cause this
state.
>
> # Now with 8 MB:
> $ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[8*1024*1024] --
> blocksize=$[8*1024] --open-au-nr=3
> 8MiB 4.64M/s
> 4MiB 18.2M/s
> 2MiB 17.6M/s
> 1MiB 17.7M/s
> 512KiB 16.8M/s
> 256KiB 15.8M/s
> 128KiB 15.2M/s
> 64KiB 13M/s
> 32KiB 9.46M/s
> 16KiB 6.14M/s
> 8KiB 2.51M/s
>
> # Seems to be similar to 16 MB
Well, the question is whether using an 8MB size is also fast with more
than 3 erase blocks. If it can have 6*8MB, that would imply only 3*16MB
in the first run. It may be easier to spot the difference between the
two when you pass '--random', but some drives don't like that at all.
> $ sudo flashbench /dev/sdb --open-au --erasesize=$[12*1024*1024] --
> blocksize=$[6*1024] --open-au-nr=3
> 12MiB 2.88M/s
> 6MiB 3.79M/s
> 3MiB 4.65M/s
> 1.5MiB 6.28M/s
> 768KiB 6.22M/s
> 384KiB 6.16M/s
> 192KiB 6.11M/s
> 96KiB 5.96M/s
> 48KiB 5.32M/s
> 24KiB 3.73M/s
> 12KiB 1.95M/s
> 6KiB 1.05M/s
>
> # 12 MB definetely ruled out
right.
> So, it seems to have 16 MB erase blocks? But then, I'm not able to count any
> reasonable block size from these numbers:
>
> $ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdb
> Disk /dev/sdb: 31,2 GB, 31 161 974 784 bytes
>
> $ factor 31161974784
> 31161974784: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 19 43 97
>
> $ echo $[31161974784 / 1024 / 97 / 43]
> 7296
>
> # 7,125 MB? Weird number...
>
> $ echo $[31161974784 / 1024 / 97 / 43 / 19]
> 384
>
> $ echo $[31161974784 / 1024 / 97 / 43 / 19 / 3]
> 128
>
> # Finally some "round" number, but too small for a 32 GB drive
>
> So, I thought I could be able to count block size from whole drive size, like
> there has to be some number of blocks with same size, which together gives the
> full disk size. Or am I still missing something?
> I did those tests on another smaller flash drive and the results was pretty
> obvious with regard of what i figured out from this list and readme. But this
> 32 GB drive is still a bit cryptic to me.
Yes, some drives are like this
> By the way, are you interested of the results from the other USB drives and SD
> cards I have around here?
Yes, if you have them, then please send them to the mailing list.
Arnd
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out parameters of my USB drive with Flashbench, but I'm a
bit confused with the results.
# Product info:
http://www.adata-group.com/index.php?action=product_feature&cid=1&piid=115
$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdb
Disk /dev/sdb: 31.2 GB, 31161974784 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3788 cylinders, total 60863232 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x0007e2e8
$ sudo flashbench -a /dev/sdb --blocksize=1024
align 8589934592 pre 655µs on 744µs post 644µs diff
95.1µs
align 4294967296 pre 654µs on 774µs post 657µs diff
118µs
align 2147483648 pre 643µs on 804µs post 633µs diff
166µs
align 1073741824 pre 538µs on 562µs post 528µs diff
28.2µs
align 536870912 pre 582µs on 594µs post 562µs diff 21.7µs
align 268435456 pre 576µs on 619µs post 565µs diff 48.3µs
align 134217728 pre 579µs on 637µs post 561µs diff 66.5µs
align 67108864 pre 563µs on 617µs post 567µs diff 51.8µs
align 33554432 pre 537µs on 578µs post 522µs diff 48.2µs
align 16777216 pre 552µs on 563µs post 512µs diff 30.5µs
align 8388608 pre 647µs on 758µs post 646µs diff 111µs
align 4194304 pre 631µs on 726µs post 616µs diff 102µs
align 2097152 pre 629µs on 744µs post 630µs diff 115µs
align 1048576 pre 633µs on 747µs post 623µs diff 119µs
align 524288 pre 641µs on 751µs post 617µs diff 122µs
align 262144 pre 636µs on 742µs post 623µs diff 112µs
align 131072 pre 618µs on 752µs post 643µs diff 121µs
align 65536 pre 604µs on 759µs post 634µs diff 140µs
align 32768 pre 631µs on 741µs post 616µs diff 117µs
align 16384 pre 644µs on 744µs post 624µs diff 111µs
align 8192 pre 636µs on 679µs post 617µs diff 52µs
align 4096 pre 614µs on 641µs post 628µs diff 20.3µs
align 2048 pre 606µs on 629µs post 629µs diff 11.4µs
# Well, from what I've read so far the page size could be 8kB, but what about
the erase block? This drive seems to behave quite differently than the example
in readme or other cards in this list. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Jaroslav Martinek
Hello,
Hope youre having a great day!
I am looking to connect with you and find out if you have any computer & electronic equipment available for donation or recycling.
We are able to offer complete services for the removal, secure data wiping and destruction, charitable donations and tax receipts.
Our donated item are tested for quality and determined whether to be reused, donated to a local charity or handled for environmentally responsible recycling; We are actively working on setting up donations for dozens of charities and organizations across Canada, and your support will help significantly. We have over 1000 charities that currently need our assistance. The list is on our website under charities.
We collect absolutely everything computer and electronic related, including all networking equipment. We adhere to stringent data protection and privacy standards.
If you are not the correct person for this, kindly provide the name of the person in charge of IT, and I will be happy to send them all the appropriate information.
This initiative is not only helping local charities, but also providing your staff an environmentally friendly & secure way to recycle their electronics, computers, and phones.
To explain the program in more detail, please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
The Team @ ERA
Account Manager (Lance)
Communication and Events
Electronic Recycling Association
* lance(a)era.ca
þ www.era.ca
( 1.403.262.4488 x 23 | 1.604.215.4483 x 23 | 1.780.455.2088 x 23
Like us on Facebook! www.facebook.com/ElectronicRecyclingAssociation
To be removed from our list reply back with "Remove" is subject.
>> Are you referring to the "essential" microSDHC 32GB (MB-MSBGA) that you
>> mentioned in some previous post in the mailing list?
>
> Yes, that's the one.
>
>> What should be the the erase block size then? 1.5 MiB or some multiple?
>
> I think it's 8 GB, but it's trying very hard to hide this.
I've lost its original partitioning and formatting and I'd be interested in
having a raw copy of the first 17 MiB using dd or at least to know the details
about the partitioning and formatting (it can be from the MB-MSBGA).
Actually I'd like to partition it with a FAT32 and an ext4.
Should I care about the C/H/S for partitioning or can I just ignore it?
I plan to set the FAT32 partition with a cluster size of 32 KiB.
If I understand well the partition should start at the 8 MiB offset and not the
4 MiB one, shoudn't it?
And of course I'd set the right amount of reserved sectors so the data would
start at the 16 MiB offset to keep it align with the erase block size of 8 MiB,
right?
I've also tried to see if there is any FAT area but it doesn't look to be the
case here:
$ sudo ./flashbench /dev/mmcblk0 --findfat --erasesize=$[2*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --fat-nr=10
2MiB 8.43M/s 8.92M/s 9.13M/s 8.81M/s 8.87M/s 9.01M/s 8.75M/s 8.97M/s
8.94M/s 8.62M/s
1MiB 8.68M/s 8.97M/s 8.63M/s 9.03M/s 9.01M/s 8.86M/s 8.81M/s 8.88M/s
8.91M/s 8.72M/s
512KiB 8.76M/s 8.93M/s 9.01M/s 8.71M/s 9M/s 8.59M/s 8.93M/s 8.92M/s
8.82M/s 8.58M/s
256KiB 8.8M/s 8.93M/s 9.03M/s 8.72M/s 8.84M/s 9.03M/s 8.63M/s 8.91M/s
8.92M/s 9.01M/s
128KiB 8.67M/s 8.87M/s 8.83M/s 8.77M/s 8.92M/s 8.9M/s 8.75M/s 8.93M/s
9.01M/s 9.03M/s
64KiB 8.68M/s 8.82M/s 8.88M/s 8.71M/s 8.94M/s 8.85M/s 8.74M/s 8.92M/s
8.72M/s 8.76M/s
32KiB 7.11M/s 7.13M/s 7.23M/s 7.22M/s 7.24M/s 7.46M/s 7.11M/s 7.33M/s
7.37M/s 7.42M/s
16KiB 4.58M/s 4.81M/s 4.75M/s 4.76M/s 4.77M/s 4.77M/s 4.7M/s 4.7M/s
4.8M/s 2.1M/s
About the ext4, do you have any recommendation?
I plan to make it start at an offset multiple of the erase block size.
I've found some recommendations here:
http://blogofterje.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/optimizing-fs-on-sd-card/
Thus I'm planning to format it that way:
mkfs.ext4 -O ^has_journal -E stride=4,stripe-width=512 -b 4096
###
# TS32GUSDHC10 made in China
#
Beside that I'd like to share the results from another TS32GUSDHC10 that I have
for now with a SanDisk controller.
It looks comparable to the results for the SDSDU-032G-A11. I've run the tests
from the Lenovo laptop.
#
# Label on front
#
1208409555DEW
BM MADE IN CHINA
A06120
1881
#
# Details
#
$ head /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/*
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/block <==
head: error reading `/sys/block/mmcblk0/device/block': Is a directory
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/cid <==
03534453553332478017ba22e200c300
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/csd <==
400e00325b590000edc87f800a404000
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/date <==
03/2012
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/driver <==
head: error reading `/sys/block/mmcblk0/device/driver': Is a directory
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/erase_size <==
512
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/fwrev <==
0x0
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/hwrev <==
0x8
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/manfid <==
0x000003
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/name <==
SU32G
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/oemid <==
0x5344
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/power <==
head: error reading `/sys/block/mmcblk0/device/power': Is a directory
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/preferred_erase_size <==
4194304
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/scr <==
0235800100000000
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/serial <==
0x17ba22e2
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/subsystem <==
head: error reading `/sys/block/mmcblk0/device/subsystem': Is a directory
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/type <==
SD
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/uevent <==
DRIVER=mmcblk
MMC_TYPE=SD
MMC_NAME=SU32G
MODALIAS=mmc:block
## From the OEM ID we can guess it's a SanDisk:
$ printf "\x"53"\x"44"\n"
SD
#
# Size (blocks of 512 bytes)
#
$ cat /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/block/mmcblk0/size
62333952
#
# Partitions
#
$ sudo fdisk /dev/mmcblk0
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/mmcblk0: 31.9 GB, 31914983424 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3880 cylinders, total 62333952 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/mmcblk0p1 8192 62333951 31162880 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
## Note: It is with its original partitioning and formatting.
#
# Read benchmark
#
$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 -b 1024
align 8589934592 pre 841µs on 881µs post 690µs diff
115µs
align 4294967296 pre 885µs on 958µs post 693µs diff
169µs
align 2147483648 pre 888µs on 950µs post 690µs diff
161µs
align 1073741824 pre 789µs on 957µs post 690µs diff
218µs
align 536870912 pre 844µs on 947µs post 693µs diff
179µs
align 268435456 pre 845µs on 952µs post 692µs diff
183µs
align 134217728 pre 809µs on 920µs post 688µs diff
172µs
align 67108864 pre 832µs on 945µs post 690µs diff
184µs
align 33554432 pre 893µs on 947µs post 689µs diff
156µs
align 16777216 pre 820µs on 934µs post 681µs diff
184µs
align 8388608 pre 767µs on 890µs post 663µs diff
176µs
align 4194304 pre 718µs on 805µs post 652µs diff
120µs ## Erase block size?
align 2097152 pre 659µs on 663µs post 663µs diff
2.26µs
align 1048576 pre 658µs on 662µs post 664µs diff
809ns
align 524288 pre 704µs on 806µs post 663µs diff
122µs
align 262144 pre 660µs on 662µs post 660µs diff
2.11µs
align 131072 pre 664µs on 660µs post 660µs diff
-1346ns
align 65536 pre 658µs on 664µs post 664µs diff
3.11µs
align 32768 pre 664µs on 669µs post 661µs diff
6.67µs
align 16384 pre 660µs on 662µs post 664µs diff
528ns
align 8192 pre 665µs on 668µs post 664µs diff
3.6µs
align 4096 pre 658µs on 660µs post 656µs diff
3.05µs
align 2048 pre 662µs on 663µs post 663µs diff
35ns
## It looks like the erase block size is 4 MiB, which can be confirmed by the
## fact the FAT32 partition starts at the 4 MiB offset.
#
# FAT area
#
$ sudo ./flashbench /dev/mmcblk0 --findfat --erasesize=$[2*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --fat-nr=7
2MiB 13.6M/s 13.7M/s 5.92M/s 6.03M/s 5.45M/s 7.73M/s 13.7M/s
1MiB 5.83M/s 13.8M/s 5.41M/s 6.9M/s 6.27M/s 6.91M/s 13.7M/s
512KiB 12.3M/s 13.7M/s 6.82M/s 6.22M/s 5.99M/s 6.69M/s 13.7M/s
256KiB 11.5M/s 13.7M/s 5.21M/s 5.9M/s 5.7M/s 7.9M/s 13.7M/s
128KiB 13.1M/s 13.8M/s 5.88M/s 7.65M/s 5.88M/s 6.16M/s 13.6M/s
64KiB 13.5M/s 13.7M/s 7.35M/s 6M/s 7.2M/s 5.34M/s 13M/s
32KiB 11.9M/s 12M/s 6.3M/s 5.48M/s 5.73M/s 5.15M/s 12M/s
16KiB 9.68M/s 9.81M/s 4.71M/s 4.84M/s 4.7M/s 5.06M/s 9.75M/s
## FAT should be between 4 MiB and 12 MiB.
## That matches the details I can read from an hexdump -C against the disk
## about the FAT size and the number of reserved sectors to have the data
## starts at the 12 MiB offset.
#
# Write benchmark
#
## It looks like the card can handle up to 11 concurrent 4 MiB blocks...
$ sudo time ./flashbench --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=1 --offset=$[40*1024*1024] /dev/mmcblk0
4MiB 13.7M/s
2MiB 13.2M/s
1MiB 12M/s
512KiB 12.7M/s
256KiB 12.7M/s
128KiB 13.4M/s
64KiB 13.5M/s
32KiB 11.9M/s
16KiB 9.68M/s
real 0m3.568s
user 0m0.212s
sys 0m0.328s
$ sudo time ./flashbench --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=11 --offset=$[40*1024*1024] /dev/mmcblk0
4MiB 13.2M/s
2MiB 13.6M/s
1MiB 13.5M/s
512KiB 13.4M/s
256KiB 13.2M/s
128KiB 12.8M/s
64KiB 12.2M/s
32KiB 10M/s
16KiB 7.42M/s
real 0m35.892s
user 0m0.164s
sys 0m0.488s
$ sudo time ./flashbench --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=12 --offset=$[40*1024*1024] /dev/mmcblk0
4MiB 9M/s
2MiB 10.5M/s
1MiB 8.45M/s
512KiB 8.46M/s
256KiB 8.25M/s
128KiB 8.11M/s
64KiB 9.39M/s
32KiB 8.06M/s
16KiB 6.52M/s
real 0m54.451s
user 0m0.240s
sys 0m0.568s
$ sudo time ./flashbench --open-au --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024]
--blocksize=$[16*1024] --open-au-nr=1 --offset=$[40*1024*1024] --random
/dev/mmcblk0
4MiB 13.7M/s
2MiB 13M/s
1MiB 12.1M/s
512KiB 5.64M/s
256KiB 3.01M/s
128KiB 2.32M/s
64KiB 2.23M/s
32KiB 1.22M/s
16KiB 590K/s
real 0m17.887s
user 0m0.200s
sys 0m0.352s
- Victor
Patriot LX Series 16GB Class 10
PSF16GSDHC10-PC
The 32GB version is already in the table but I can't be sure the
boundaries would be the same.
I'm trying to follow this tutorial to optimize the ext4 partition on
one of these for use in a Raspberry Pi. I also require a small vfat
(about 40MB) partition at the beginning for /boot.
http://blogofterje.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/optimizing-fs-on-sd-card/
If anyone can make sense of the attached numbers could you tell me what
boundary to set the partition on and the stripe/stride numbers to use.
Or explain to me how I can get more meaningful numbers with flashbench
for inclusion of this card in the table?
thanks,
Gerald
