OK, now you're just showing off :-)Actually, I did mis-state one tiny thing - My sysadmin had upgraded it to SCSI-360 when I wasn't looking, darn him. I discovered that when I pulled the case off to see if there was cache on the controller. It's Atlas-III/10K and there's 128Meg on the controller. Internal cache-to-drive-cache speed according to maxtor is 490MByte/sec.
Could well be. I sanity checked your figures with benchmarks available on the WEB, and the bigger the filesystem block size (up to 32K), the faster the transfer speed. Your test figures do appear to be correct. That Quantum drive is quite is the business!I really have no idea how well implemented their caching system is. But the results to me suggest that their cache performs better than system cache and therefore is slowed by allowing caching elsewhere.
Do you not convert to mpeg2 or other formats? What is you application -pro editing?For measurement, I use a small application that I wrote for testing. It's proven time and time again to match all the big test apps, so I do trust it. The nice thing is that it's small and lightweight and easy to just run 'real quick' before doing an important video capture session. Make sure that everything's together.The winnov board uses a proprietary hardware compression algorithm that is configurable. I use a 2:1 compression so that I can get the data onto the drive reliably. At 2:1 there's basically zero visable loss.
The DC30 is a bit of a pain as far as I am concerned. It has poor drivers, uses a proporietary compression system and you need the same card to do playback. Having said that, the problem might just be Windows. I can't say I get much visible loss out of my DC10+ though. But then I'm not looking at it with Pro equipment. It's for home use only.I have a DC30Pro in my Windows machine. Not at all impressed.
That'll be interesting.I've ordered a couple of Cheetah 15,000 RPM SCSI-360 drives.. If you like, I'll report back their results on the same test.
Ed-T.
--- Jodie----- Original Message -----From:Edward TandiSent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:39 PMSubject: Re: xfs and drive speedsJodie,
OK, you are using high-end(-ish) drives. I find the un-cached result surprising as it appears to be higher than the result for the cached test. What are you using to do the test?
Also the very high cached read result (looks too high to me) would imply that the 512MB of RAM you have in the machine is having a large effect on the results. Could this be affecting the write tests also? Does the Adaptec card have a cache?
As for what you need for capture; I use a DC10+ that does mjpeg compression. At full resolution it uses 2GB every 5 minutes. This rounds up to 7MB/s. I don't know about your winnov card, but my DC10+ doesn't do that well on compression considering what mpeg1 and mpeg2 can do to it.
Anyway, so why such an interest in this xfs fs format?
Ed-T.
BTW, a single 5K RPM IDE just isn't good enough, and 7.5K RPMs aren't that much more expensive.
Jodie Reynolds wrote:I think Eric has a point. Even with you calculations below, I think the
bottleneck is you hard drive. Write rate is slower than read rate.
13MB/s write rate for a single disk is doing very well.
Ed.-T.
I agree Write is slower than Read, but his numbers don't seem all that out
of the ball-park, depending on his drive.
testing my video capture box (Dual PIII-1Gig, 512Mb PC133 RAM, dual Quantum
Atlas 10,000 RPM drives (one disabled for test) w/29160 Adaptec SCSI-160
controller) I post numbers consistantly higher than 13MB/sec write, actually
rather substantially higher, more than double on a long sustained write
(like we'd see for video) -
Test File: "/$$test$$.tst"
Test File Size: 6400 MB
Testing Uncached Write Speed....
! Data Transfer: 27.19 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.8%
Testing Uncached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 21.89 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.4%
Testing Cached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 17.89 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.0%
Testing Cached Read Speed....
Data Transfer:179.67 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.4% (PHEW!)
I'll also admit that this is skewed some-what out of the park of common
consumer machines... !
If we're talking about a 5400 RPM IDE-33 drive, all
bets are off. [grin]
But now on to the real question here for a moment: NTSC resolution is what,
480x704 x24bits x30fps (merged-frame/deinterlaced), right?
My numbers for full-screen, merged-frame/uninterlaced, non-hardware assisted
capture would then be 480 lines x704 pixels x24 bpp x30 fps or around
238Mbit/sec, which is about 30MBytes/sec, worst-case, right? Which would
explain why I like my winnov card doing 2:1 hardware compression taking me
down to about 15MByte/sec, or enough to reliably ge! t the data onto the
drive.
Did I make some huge mistake here?
--- Jodie Reynolds, CTO
Interact Devices, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Video4linux-list mailing list
Video4linux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
