Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (10)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
|
2015-07-04
, 14:25
|
|
Posts: 432 |
Thanked: 917 times |
Joined on Jun 2011
|
#2
|
Code:
# /home/nemo/horst-NFS/hdparm-9.48/hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk0 /dev/mmcblk0: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 210 MB in 3.02 seconds = 69.57 MB/sec…
Thanks for the code !
 |
|
2015-07-04
, 16:11
|
|
Posts: 6,447 |
Thanked: 20,981 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by saponga
What does the section name tell you
Is that result from an N9 ?
The N9 does not have an SD card, BTW.EDIT
FWIW, here are my results. First, from my Jolla:
Code:
[root@Dinghy hdparm-9.48]# /home/nemo/Dev/hdparm-9.48/hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk0 /dev/mmcblk0: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 186 MB in 3.02 seconds = 61.66 MB/sec [root@Dinghy hdparm-9.48]# /home/nemo/Dev/hdparm-9.48/hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk1 /dev/mmcblk1: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 60 MB in 3.27 seconds = 18.38 MB/sec [root@Dinghy hdparm-9.48]#
Code:
Bianca:~# /home/user/MyDocs/Dev/hdparm-9.48/hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk0 /dev/mmcblk0: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 70 MB in 3.09 seconds = 22.62 MB/sec Bianca:~# /home/user/MyDocs/Dev/hdparm-9.48/hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk1 /dev/mmcblk1: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 44 MB in 3.06 seconds = 14.39 MB/sec Bianca:~#
Last edited by pichlo; 2015-07-04 at 18:14.
|
|
2015-07-05
, 10:22
|
|
Posts: 37 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Jun 2015
@ Munich, Germany
|
#4
|
Originally Posted by saponga
It's neither N9 nor N900 but Jolla.
Is that result from an N9 ? It should be that diferent from an N900 ?!
Originally Posted by pichlo
They are worth a lot, at least for me, as this shows a slower card. Anyway, waiting for results of faster cards as I want to know if the slot can handle more than 20 MB/s.
FWIW, here are my results.
I went for the price, not quality
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to V10lator For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2015-07-05
, 14:50
|
|
Posts: 270 |
Thanked: 610 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Leipzig/Germany
|
#5
|
Here is the result from my Jolla:
Card is a Sandisk 64GB Class 10 MicroSD
Code:
[root@touko nemo]# ./hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk1 /dev/mmcblk1: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 58 MB in 3.08 seconds = 18.81 MB/sec
__________________
N800 -> N810 -> N900 -> N9 -> Jolla & TOHKBD -> Jolla C -> Xperia X -> XA2 Plus Dual Sim
http://www.seiichiro0185.org
N800 -> N810 -> N900 -> N9 -> Jolla & TOHKBD -> Jolla C -> Xperia X -> XA2 Plus Dual Sim
http://www.seiichiro0185.org
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to seiichiro0185 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-06
, 23:27
|
|
Posts: 37 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Jun 2015
@ Munich, Germany
|
#7
|
@jeyroll Please note that there's a difference when using --direct. I try to get statistics from the card slot itself, so --direct is more close to metal.
//EDIT: For another test I just putted a sample from /dev/urandom of my desktop onto the sd card. Re-inserted into the phone and tried to read it:
So again the 20 MB/s limit that we saw now with two class 10 cards. Has anyone any faster results?
BTW: When testing with such files like the one in my edit make sure (parts of) the file isn't in cache!
Last edited by V10lator; 2015-07-09 at 13:38.
//EDIT: For another test I just putted a sample from /dev/urandom of my desktop onto the sd card. Re-inserted into the phone and tried to read it:
Code:
$ dd if=random.sample of=/dev/null bs=4k 94033+1 records in 94033+1 records out 385162240 bytes (385 MB) copied, 19.3315 s, 19.9 MB/s
BTW: When testing with such files like the one in my edit make sure (parts of) the file isn't in cache!
Last edited by V10lator; 2015-07-09 at 13:38.
|
|
2015-07-13
, 08:39
|
|
Posts: 204 |
Thanked: 443 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
@ Germany - Potsdam
|
#8
|
The median from a range of 20.64 to 20.77 MB/s
SanDisk 128G Ultra microSDXC UHS-I Class 10 (max read: 48MB/s)
Code:
hdparm -t --direct /dev/mmcblk1 /dev/mmcblk1: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 64 MB in 3.09 seconds = 20.73 MB/sec
|
|
2015-07-19
, 20:41
|
|
Posts: 6,447 |
Thanked: 20,981 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#9
|
Catching up with TMO after some absence and coming back to this thread. It seems that my el-cheapo 16 GB card is doing about as well as otber people's super-duper 64 or 128 GB. In other words, it is not my card that is the bottleneck. What else might it possibly be, I wonder
It might be interesting to compare the results for the same card between a Jolla and a desktop.
It might be interesting to compare the results for the same card between a Jolla and a desktop.
| The Following User Says Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2015-07-19
, 21:54
|
|
Posts: 435 |
Thanked: 684 times |
Joined on Apr 2012
@ Netherlands 020
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by pichlo
Is 'otber' the word you really meant? Please don't do that in your rcS-late script.
It seems that my el-cheapo 16 GB card is doing about as well as otber people's super-duper 64 or 128 GB..
| The Following User Says Thank You to jellyroll For This Useful Post: | ||
So I thought it's time to benchmark. Now I could provide a rpm but that's overkilled as all you need is the hdparm binary. Either download the sources from http://sourceforge.net/projects/hdparm/ and compile it for yourself (which is as simple as executing make) or use this precompiled one.
To benchmark with it do:
Another benchmark could be to read from the card after dropping caches but first we would need a file to read... Ideas?
//EDIT: Just for reference here the speed of the internal storage: