Thread: [Under consideration] More efficient and flexible use of internal flash
View Single Post
titan is offline titan
2010-02-02 , 08:29
Posts: 946 | Thanked: 1,650 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Germany
#80
I also did use a "fresh" installation, so my results may be biased as well (but all processes were sleeping).
IIRC you need to set -S15 for mkfs.vfat
I used standard vfat options with -F32 and ca. 520MB free on a 2GB FAT partition.
journalling may also affect parallel read+write operations.

BTW, I realized that the NAND performance may be the best-case scenario
as it is a compressed FS and bonnie only writes zeros.
We should also benchmark copying from /dev/random (worst case) and from large typical files (e.g. libqt) from RAMdisk.

Originally Posted by jom View Post
Titan, I think what you suggest will give the most accurate results. When I run the test I also thought about reflashing it, but I didn't want to lose my installation. So I ran 'top' to see if there were any busy processes first.

I've remembered now from my previous tests on a flash card a while ago that formating FAT32 to a cluster size of 32KB significantly improved performance. I think most flash cards and USB sticks are formatted to this (though I'm not sure how to see the parameters on the N900).

When you did your write testing, what parameters did you use?