![]() I would question your data rates because Activity Monitor is putting out overall system rates, not Scannerz specific rates. The application can then almost exclusively act like a disk tester. What you've done is stopped the graphics update from occurring by covering the GUI up. It's really the same phenomena with games, where one is poky and slow on one system but on a new system it flies. The problem, if we can call it that, has been around since PCs and Mac's stopped using character terminals for displays. Question: Does this behavior match your experiences? This seems to confirm my previous estimates.Ī scanning speed of 65 MB/s makes use of Scannerz impractical for very large RAIDs.Ī scanning speed of 650 MB/s makes use of Scannerz practical for very large RAIDs. Second, Scannerz window completely covered up in display by another window: Question: What is the explanation for this? Answer: Could it be that in the covered up case no interrupt is necessary to display the running current scan numbers and the nMP with Mavericks takes advantage of this fact? Here is the Scannerz window:īTW, the copying process has finished by now and I got these snapshots:įirst, Scannerz window fully visible in display: Please, also note that now the Scannerz CPU utilization has gone up to 23.0 %CPU. So, that’s about a Tenfold increase in Scannerz scanning speed. So, if we subtract the typical read data rate for the copying process we end up with an estimate of about 650 MB/s sustained for the Scannerz Normal Scan process, which happens to be the typical read data rate I measured for this particular software RAID. Whereas as expected the write data rate for the copying process stayed roughly the same, the sustained combined read data rate has gone up to typically around 800 MB/s, varying between 600-900 MB/s. However, when I cover up (almost/completely) the Scannerz window with another window - be it a Finder, BBEdit, or Safari window - then I measure these data rates: Please, also note that in this case Scannerz uses about 6.1 %CPU activity. ![]() That leaves about 60-70 MB/s for Scannerz reading operation. So, the copying process seems to get about 130-140 MB/s each for read and write operations. When both the copying window and the Scannerz window are entirely visible I observe these typical data rates: I am using the Activity Monitor to monitor data rates achieved. On a different Thunderbolt2 cable/bus I am using Scannerz to do a Normal Scan of another 4-way software RAID. ![]() So, on one Thunderbolt2 cable/bus I am copying from a 4-way software RAID to a single hard drive and sustain around 130-140 MB/s read and write speeds each. But I noticed no apparent detrimental effect if I run Scannerz on one Thunderbolt2 bus and another I/O stream on another one. I know that I am supposed to run Scannerz by itself. I have a new MacPro - 6 cores, 64 GB memory, 1 TB PCIe-based flash, D700s - and a number of hard drives and software RAIDS attached, spread across the 6 Thunderbolt2 connectors that are grouped into 3 different buses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |