hi guys
this card seems quite unqualified
************************************** **** Emtec microSDHC class 4, 4GB **** **************************************
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/cid <== 02544d534130344706142c312600b300
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/csd <== 400e00325b5900001d6f7f800a400000
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/scr <== 0235800001000000
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/fwrev <== 0x6
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/hwrev <== 0x0
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/cid <== 02544d534130344706142c312600b300
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/manfid <== 0x000002
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/oemid <== 0x544d
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/serial <== 0x142c3126
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/erase_size <== 512
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/preferred_erase_size <== 4194304
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/name <== SA04G
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/date <== 03/2011 clock: 33000000 Hz vdd: 20 (3.2 ~ 3.3 V) bus mode: 2 (push-pull) chip select: 0 (don't care) power mode: 2 (on) bus width: 2 (4 bits) timing spec: 2 (sd high-speed)
$ fdisk -lu /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 3951 MB, 3951034368 bytes 128 heads, 32 sectors/track, 1884 cylinders, total 7716864 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00000000
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 614399 307199+ 83 Linux /dev/sda2 614400 819199 102400 83 Linux /dev/sda3 819200 1851391 516096 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda4 1851392 7364607 2756608 83 Linux
$ ./flashbench -a /dev/sda3 --count=100 --blocksize=2048 align 134217728 pre 894µs on 1.44ms post 1.26ms diff 362µs align 67108864 pre 919µs on 1.47ms post 1.3ms diff 358µs align 33554432 pre 894µs on 1.44ms post 1.25ms diff 362µs align 16777216 pre 880µs on 1.38ms post 1.24ms diff 326µs align 8388608 pre 872µs on 1.38ms post 1.23ms diff 329µs align 4194304 pre 880µs on 1.38ms post 1.23ms diff 326µs align 2097152 pre 1.13ms on 1.13ms post 1.12ms diff 1.58µs align 1048576 pre 1.01ms on 984µs post 982µs diff -12970n align 524288 pre 1.16ms on 1.12ms post 1.11ms diff -16689n align 262144 pre 1.02ms on 986µs post 984µs diff -18236n align 131072 pre 1.13ms on 1.12ms post 1.11ms diff -2203ns align 65536 pre 1.06ms on 987µs post 979µs diff -31308n align 32768 pre 1.13ms on 1.13ms post 1.11ms diff 3.15µs align 16384 pre 1.03ms on 986µs post 980µs diff -21555n align 8192 pre 1.12ms on 1.11ms post 1.11ms diff -8334ns align 4096 pre 1.23ms on 1.19ms post 1.18ms diff -11449n
-> 4MiB eraseblock
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=1 -O --blocksize=2048 4MiB 6.62M/s 2MiB 4.95M/s 1MiB 4.99M/s 512KiB 4.94M/s 256KiB 4.88M/s 128KiB 4.64M/s 64KiB 6M/s 32KiB 4.61M/s 16KiB 3.91M/s 8KiB 3.15M/s 4KiB 2.4M/s 2KiB 25.3K/s
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=2 -O --blocksize=2048 4MiB 5.68M/s 2MiB 3.05M/s 1MiB 1.56M/s 512KiB 797K/s 256KiB 404K/s 128KiB 205K/s 64KiB 103K/s 32KiB 51.6K/s freezing
-> 1 block
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=1 -O --blocksize=2048 --random 4MiB 3.33M/s 2MiB 3.3M/s 1MiB 3M/s 512KiB 1.2M/s 256KiB 671K/s 128KiB 310K/s 64KiB 150K/s 32KiB 81.9K/s 16KiB 40.5K/s 8KiB 20.6K/s ^C
-> unqualified for random access
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 -f --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] 4MiB 3.31M/s 5.06M/s 5.02M/s 5.01M/s 4.93M/s 5M/s 2MiB 4.96M/s 5.04M/s 4.98M/s 5.01M/s 5.02M/s 5.04M/s 1MiB 4.99M/s 5.01M/s 4.98M/s 5.01M/s 5.01M/s 5.02M/s 512KiB 4.99M/s 5.06M/s 5.04M/s 4.96M/s 4.97M/s 4.95M/s 256KiB 4.85M/s 5.01M/s 4.98M/s 5M/s 5.03M/s 5.05M/s 128KiB 4.66M/s 4.84M/s 4.87M/s 4.88M/s 4.93M/s 4.88M/s 64KiB 6M/s 5.47M/s 5.43M/s 5.11M/s 5.35M/s 5.38M/s 32KiB 4.59M/s 5.27M/s 5.23M/s 5.29M/s 5.2M/s 5.21M/s 16KiB 3.87M/s 4.29M/s 4.3M/s 4.24M/s 4.29M/s 4.3M/s
what can i say with these?
peter
On Wednesday 13 July 2011, Peter Warasin wrote:
hi guys
this card seems quite unqualified
Agreed
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/manfid <== 0x000002
==> /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/oemid <== 0x544d
"TM" -- Toshiba Memory (?), same as Kingston cards
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=1 -O --blocksize=2048 4MiB 6.62M/s 2MiB 4.95M/s 1MiB 4.99M/s 512KiB 4.94M/s 256KiB 4.88M/s 128KiB 4.64M/s 64KiB 6M/s 32KiB 4.61M/s 16KiB 3.91M/s 8KiB 3.15M/s 4KiB 2.4M/s 2KiB 25.3K/s
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=2 -O --blocksize=2048 4MiB 5.68M/s 2MiB 3.05M/s 1MiB 1.56M/s 512KiB 797K/s 256KiB 404K/s 128KiB 205K/s 64KiB 103K/s 32KiB 51.6K/s freezing
-> 1 block
Right, also like Kingston behaviour. This card also has the extremely annoying property of not being able to do efficient <4KB writes at all. It has a page size of 4KB, and if you have partitions that are not aligned to 4KB, you end up in the 25K/s category instead of the 2.4M/s+ category even for simple linear writes.
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 --open-au-nr=1 -O --blocksize=2048 --random 4MiB 3.33M/s 2MiB 3.3M/s 1MiB 3M/s 512KiB 1.2M/s 256KiB 671K/s 128KiB 310K/s 64KiB 150K/s 32KiB 81.9K/s 16KiB 40.5K/s 8KiB 20.6K/s ^C
This too.
-> unqualified for random access
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda3 -f --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] 4MiB 3.31M/s 5.06M/s 5.02M/s 5.01M/s 4.93M/s 5M/s 2MiB 4.96M/s 5.04M/s 4.98M/s 5.01M/s 5.02M/s 5.04M/s 1MiB 4.99M/s 5.01M/s 4.98M/s 5.01M/s 5.01M/s 5.02M/s 512KiB 4.99M/s 5.06M/s 5.04M/s 4.96M/s 4.97M/s 4.95M/s 256KiB 4.85M/s 5.01M/s 4.98M/s 5M/s 5.03M/s 5.05M/s 128KiB 4.66M/s 4.84M/s 4.87M/s 4.88M/s 4.93M/s 4.88M/s 64KiB 6M/s 5.47M/s 5.43M/s 5.11M/s 5.35M/s 5.38M/s 32KiB 4.59M/s 5.27M/s 5.23M/s 5.29M/s 5.2M/s 5.21M/s 16KiB 3.87M/s 4.29M/s 4.3M/s 4.24M/s 4.29M/s 4.3M/s
what can i say with these?
What this test does is do the same test as '--open-au-nr=1 -O' on the first six erase blocks (default for --fat-nr=X), to see if any of them are faster or slower than others. On some cards, the differences are quite noticeable.
If you also pass --random, you should notice that some of the columns actually are not too bad and stay reasonably fast, while the other columns show the same results as the --open-au --random test above.
Probably the first two columns are fast, while the others are slow, which is consistent with regular Kingston cards.
Thanks for the data point,
Arnd
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda -f --random --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] 4MiB 4.38M/s 4.93M/s 3.79M/s 5.04M/s 4.98M/s 4.93M/s 2MiB 4.65M/s 4.95M/s 3.29M/s 2.8M/s 2.84M/s 2.81M/s 1MiB 5.18M/s 4.94M/s 2.04M/s 1.95M/s 1.95M/s 1.95M/s 512KiB 4.35M/s 4.67M/s 1.03M/s 1.02M/s 1.02M/s 998K/s 256KiB 3.33M/s 3.63M/s 613K/s 610K/s 609K/s 611K/s 128KiB 2.34M/s 2.68M/s 298K/s 298K/s 298K/s 298K/s 64KiB 1.36M/s 1.59M/s 147K/s 147K/s 147K/s 147K/s 32KiB 816K/s 1M/s 81.1K/s 81K/s 81K/s 81K/s 16KiB 469K/s 507K/s 40.2K/s 40.3K/s 40.3K/s 40.3K/s
On Monday 18 July 2011, Peter Warasin wrote:
$ ./flashbench /dev/sda -f --random --erasesize=$[4*1024*1024] 4MiB 4.38M/s 4.93M/s 3.79M/s 5.04M/s 4.98M/s 4.93M/s 2MiB 4.65M/s 4.95M/s 3.29M/s 2.8M/s 2.84M/s 2.81M/s 1MiB 5.18M/s 4.94M/s 2.04M/s 1.95M/s 1.95M/s 1.95M/s 512KiB 4.35M/s 4.67M/s 1.03M/s 1.02M/s 1.02M/s 998K/s 256KiB 3.33M/s 3.63M/s 613K/s 610K/s 609K/s 611K/s 128KiB 2.34M/s 2.68M/s 298K/s 298K/s 298K/s 298K/s 64KiB 1.36M/s 1.59M/s 147K/s 147K/s 147K/s 147K/s 32KiB 816K/s 1M/s 81.1K/s 81K/s 81K/s 81K/s 16KiB 469K/s 507K/s 40.2K/s 40.3K/s 40.3K/s 40.3K/s
Ok, exactly as expected: the first two columns show erase blocks with the FAT optimization that allow random writes, while the others are only for linear writes and get much slower when used with random access.
Arnd
flashbench-results@lists.linaro.org
-
Arnd Bergmann -
Peter Warasin