On Sunday 24 April 2011 18:05:01 Amit Pundir wrote:
Forgot to add --findfat result, here it goes
$ sudo ./flashbench --findfat /dev/mmcblk0 4MiB 2.73M/s 3.76M/s 3.77M/s 3.77M/s 3.77M/s 3.78M/s 2MiB 3.52M/s 3.77M/s 3.75M/s 3.77M/s 3.77M/s 3.77M/s 1MiB 3.52M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 512KiB 3.52M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 256KiB 3.52M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 3.76M/s 128KiB 3.5M/s 3.75M/s 3.74M/s 3.75M/s 3.74M/s 3.75M/s 64KiB 3.5M/s 3.74M/s 3.72M/s 3.72M/s 3.74M/s 3.74M/s 32KiB 3.09M/s 3.52M/s 3.52M/s 3.52M/s 3.48M/s 3.51M/s 16KiB 2.56M/s 2.72M/s 2.73M/s 2.72M/s 2.74M/s 2.74M/s
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Amit Pundir pundiramit@gmail.com wrote:
Card details:
cid = 744a455553442020104180008e00b200 csd = 400e00325b5900001e117f800a400000 date = 02/2011 fwrev = 0x0 hwrev = 0x1 manfid = 0x000074 name = USD oemid = 0x4a45 scr = 0235800000000000 serial = 0x4180008e type = SD
Thanks for the additional info. Note that you should also use the '--erasesize=$[1 * 1024 * 1024]' in the findfat test run, otherwise it will assume 4 MB. Also, it's helpful to use '--random --blocksize=2048' there, as it makes the results easier to interpret in some cases.
For this card, it seems like the first 4 MB contain a special area, they perform worse in linear access than the next five 4MB sections, which all perform the same. It would be nice to know whether the entire 4 MB are special or just part of it.
Arnd