On 3 Feb, Mark Knecht wrote:
> None the less, people have commented for a long time that the Linux 1394
> implementation isn't up to the performance that Windows gets from the
> same drives. I haven't done any comparative testing in a long time
> (maybe 18 months) but when I did I was only getting about 40-50% on
> Linux what I was getting out of Windows in the very same drive.
Perhaps Windows optimizes the gap count. Could that make a
notable difference in a one host <-> one disk environment?
Are there other means to optimize performance, especially of
very small 1394 networks?
> NOTE: testing the same partition meant testing both with FAT32 which is
> admittedly not the best Linux can do, but why should Linux be *any*
> slower doing FAT32? I don't know...
Tha FAT filesystem is really slow under Linux. Just watch the
drive LEDs during operations involving a FAT partition. However
you could still measure at least raw read performance with dd.
There are sure disk benchmarks under Windows that also measure
filesystem independend operation.
-- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=-- --=- --=-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ mailing list Linux1394-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux1394-userReceived on Wed Feb 4 21:18:43 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 02 May 2005 - 09:16:46 CEST