Why do you blame all these variations on bonnie? Given the number of
factors that influence disk performance, the a priori probability that
the variations you're seeing are all bonnie's fault is 1/m^n where m is
the number of factors and n is the number of observed discrepancies.
The more discrepancies you cite as further evidence for bonnie's
dishonesty, the less believable you become, by a factor of m for every
additional discrepancy.
Given that bonnie is the same program every time and that you haven't
told us what you think bonnie's contribution to the variance is, I'd
guess it was even smaller than that.
>first thing to notice is it's make a
>difference where on the disks the program is benching because of the change in
>rotational speed.
And somehow this makes bonnie a liar? This is one of the many factors
that are well known to influence drive performance. Bonnie does not
magically compensate for these factors, other than for the artifact of
cache hit speedups which it compensates for by writing large amounts.
Bonnie reports what it observes. Unless you have some explanation of the
variance, what it observes is indicative of performance of the measured
system as configured, well known to be highly variable even if bonnie
had never been written.
Vaughan Pratt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu