Actually my problem as written in the subject of the mail was that the
sequential read was slow. Somebody suggested to use a file instead of
the raw partition. If the file was detected as sparse (who does that??),
it would be even faster to read not slower.

nicolae


On 03/18/2010 03:40 AM, Michael Evans wrote:

First off, why not use a hard disk benchmark utility (their names
escape me aside from Bonnie++) which has these issues worked out?

Second, if you absolutely must try to do a benchmark with basic tools
(that buffer and use cache) try this:

dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=10000 | tr '\0' 't' > testfile
dd if=testfile of=/dev/null bs=1M

You may note that you'll be writing a file with Ts instead of a file
with 0's; my method should not be detected as sparse, where as the
case with zeros probably will be detected as sparse and simply not
stored.

If in doubt you can check the size of the file on disk with ls -ls
If I'm reading the output correctly the left most column (size on
disk) is in kilobyte units, even on a 4kb cluster EXT4 filesystem