search for: tbench

...ripe of the raid 5 array. I ran hdparm -Tt on each individual drive as well as both of the raid arrays and included these numbers below. The numbers I got were pretty low for modern drives. Still, I don't even get read performance comparable to what hdparm -tT outputs. I also ran dbench and tbench. In both cases, I'm seeing numbers in the 3-4 MB/sec range. I only ran these benchmarks with one client becuase this server only sees one client. It is connected via gigabit ethernet to one other machine, which is the only client. For tbench, I ran the client on a seperate machine to minimi...

...84.9 14.6 2.4.19 83.6 12.8 2.4.20-rc1 81.3 12.4 2.4.22aa1 75.2 4.8 2.4.23-rc1 72.6 6.2 2.4.18 64.2 3.7 - tbench: Performance is worse than previous kernels, but not too much. tbench (Numbers are in MB/second, so bigger is better) ====== tbench-1.3 192 processes Average +/- MB/sec 2.4.22aa1 136.8 1.9 2.4.20-rc1aa1 105.4 3.4 2.4.21-rc6-ac1...

Is there any piece of software that I can use to run between a client and a linux or windows server with a smb/cifs share that will test network speed, latency, sustained read/writes, multiple file create, read, write, close, etc.. etc.. over X period time? I'm testing a Centos server with samba and Windows 2k3/8 servers on the other end of a T1 connection and while I know the T1 bandwidth

...S Circular enables to boot OSes on Xen with a globalized virtual disk "HTTP-FUSE CLOOP". Benchmark: VMKNOPPIX includes benchmark softwares. Pi calculation for CPU benchmark http://h2np.net/pi/pi_quick_start.tar.gz dbench for IO benchmark tbench for Network benchmark Xengine for Graphic Benchmark OProfile: VMKNOPPIX includes xenoprifle to take profile of HVM Domain OS. Quick Boot: VMKNOPPIX is optimized by LCAT for fast CD boot. GRUB Menu: includes three items; Xen3.04-1(kernel 2.6.16.33), IMA(kerenel2.6.19.1) and...

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

...SMP cli() code might actually need more bytes than this, but I haven't measured it yet. Kernel compile system time: normal 40.73 paravirt 41.0633 [.818%] paravirt-patch 39.99 [-1.816%] Kernel compile wall time: normal 84.1506 paravirt 84.7539 [.716%] paravirt-patch 84.4994 [.414%] Tbench: normal 73.473 paravirt 73.7777 [.414%] paravirt-patch 73.8841 [.559%] Dbench: normal 264.418 paravirt 262.445 [-.746%] paravirt-patch 262.26 [-.816%] Ubench: normal 2.95643 paravirt 2.89111 [-2.209%] paravirt-patch 2.89052 [-2.229%] Lmbench null syscall: normal 0.37 paravirt...

...SMP cli() code might actually need more bytes than this, but I haven't measured it yet. Kernel compile system time: normal 40.73 paravirt 41.0633 [.818%] paravirt-patch 39.99 [-1.816%] Kernel compile wall time: normal 84.1506 paravirt 84.7539 [.716%] paravirt-patch 84.4994 [.414%] Tbench: normal 73.473 paravirt 73.7777 [.414%] paravirt-patch 73.8841 [.559%] Dbench: normal 264.418 paravirt 262.445 [-.746%] paravirt-patch 262.26 [-.816%] Ubench: normal 2.95643 paravirt 2.89111 [-2.209%] paravirt-patch 2.89052 [-2.229%] Lmbench null syscall: normal 0.37 paravirt...