# ICH6M Performance

## jlward4th

I'm moving a conversation from https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-3106747.html#3106747 to here as to not further hijack the nitro thread.

So, even with ata_piix Phlogiston is getting much better performance than me: *jlward4th wrote:*   

> 
> 
> ```
> Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:
> 
> ...

 

 *Phlogiston wrote:*   

> Ok I found the package, and here are my results:
> 
> ```
> Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:
> 
> ...

 

Now, let's figure out why...

Here's my controller from lspci:

```
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801FBM (ICH6M) SATA Controller (rev 03)
```

Here's the relevent section from my dmesg:

```
ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: version 1.05

PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1f.2 to 64

ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x1F0 ctl 0x3F6 bmdma 0x18C0 irq 14

ata1: dev 0 cfg 49:0f00 82:746b 83:5be8 84:4003 85:f469 86:1848 87:4003 88:203f

ata1: dev 0 ATA-6, max UDMA/100, 117210240 sectors: LBA

ata1(0): applying bridge limits

ata1: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100

scsi0 : ata_piix

  Vendor: ATA       Model: HTS726060M9AT00   Rev: MH4O

  Type:   Direct-Access                      ANSI SCSI revision: 05

ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0x18C8 irq 15

scsi1 : ata_piix

SCSI device sda: 117210240 512-byte hdwr sectors (60012 MB)

SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back

SCSI device sda: 117210240 512-byte hdwr sectors (60012 MB)

SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back

 sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4
```

Phlogiston, can you post yours?

----------

## Phlogiston

Ok here we go...

lsmod:

```

00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801FBM (ICH6M) SATA Controller (rev 03) (prog-if 80 [Master])

```

and dmesg:

```

libata version 1.20 loaded.

ahci 0000:00:1f.2: version 1.2

ahci: probe of 0000:00:1f.2 failed with error -12

ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: version 1.05

PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1f.2 to 64

ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x1F0 ctl 0x3F6 bmdma 0x18C0 irq 14

ata1: dev 0 cfg 49:2b00 82:346b 83:5b29 84:6003 85:3469 86:9a09 87:6003 88:203f

ata1: dev 0 ATA-6, max UDMA/100, 117210240 sectors: LBA

ata1(0): applying bridge limits

ata1: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100

scsi0 : ata_piix

  Vendor: ATA       Model: FUJITSU MHV2060A  Rev: 0084

  Type:   Direct-Access                      ANSI SCSI revision: 05

ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0x18C8 irq 15

ata2: dev 0 cfg 49:0f00 82:0000 83:0000 84:0000 85:0000 86:0000 87:0000 88:0407

ata2: dev 0 ATAPI, max UDMA/33

ata2(0): applying bridge limits

ata2: dev 0 configured for UDMA/33

scsi1 : ata_piix

  Vendor: MATSHITA  Model: DVD-RAM UJ-822S   Rev: 1.61

  Type:   CD-ROM                             ANSI SCSI revision: 05

SCSI device sda: 117210240 512-byte hdwr sectors (60012 MB)

SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back

SCSI device sda: 117210240 512-byte hdwr sectors (60012 MB)

SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back

 sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4 < sda5 sda6 sda7 sda8 sda9 sda10 sda11 sda12 >

sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sda

sr0: scsi3-mmc drive: 62x/62x writer dvd-ram cd/rw xa/form2 cdda tray

Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20

sr 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr0

sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0

sr 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 5

```

Looks quite similar doesn't it?

----------

## jlward4th

arggggg....  This is driving me nuts.  Your hard drive is even a 5400rpm drive and still much faster than my 7200rpm.  You have the t43 with a slower processor.  We have the same exact controller.

Would you mind posting your kernel config as well?

Are you using reiser4?

What are your fs option in your fstab?

Sorry.  I owe you.

----------

## Phlogiston

 *jlward4th wrote:*   

> arggggg....  This is driving me nuts.  Your hard drive is even a 5400rpm drive and still much faster than my 7200rpm.  You have the t43 with a slower processor.  We have the same exact controller.
> 
> Would you mind posting your kernel config as well?
> 
> Are you using reiser4?
> ...

 

Hehe thats true with the t43 and everything   :Razz:  But no my processor is as fast as yours. But that has "nothing" to do with the speed.

Second: No, I'm using ext3 for most of my partitions.

How much do you pay for my kernel config?

/edit: Okok, here you go.

----------

## jlward4th

Thanks.  And maybe you don't have a slower processor.  Just a guess...  But, let's see:   :Wink: 

```
jamesw@grande ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo

processor       : 0

vendor_id       : GenuineIntel

cpu family      : 6

model           : 13

model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 2.13GHz

stepping        : 8

cpu MHz         : 2128.147

cache size      : 2048 KB

fdiv_bug        : no

hlt_bug         : no

f00f_bug        : no

coma_bug        : no

fpu             : yes

fpu_exception   : yes

cpuid level     : 2

wp              : yes

flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe est tm2

bogomips        : 4260.17
```

----------

## Phlogiston

 *jlward4th wrote:*   

> Thanks.  And maybe you don't have a slower processor.  Just a guess...  But, let's see:  
> 
> ```
> jamesw@grande ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> 
> ...

 

Ok here you go:

```

cat /proc/cpuinfo

processor       : 0

vendor_id       : GenuineIntel

cpu family      : 6

model           : 13

model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz

stepping        : 8

cpu MHz         : 798.449

cache size      : 2048 KB

fdiv_bug        : no

hlt_bug         : no

f00f_bug        : no

coma_bug        : no

fpu             : yes

fpu_exception   : yes

cpuid level     : 2

wp              : yes

flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe nx est tm2

bogomips        : 1598.65

```

And no, you won...   :Cool: 

----------

## jlward4th

And yet I'm jelious of you because you have faster IO!

----------

## Phlogiston

 *jlward4th wrote:*   

> And yet I'm jelious of you because you have faster IO!

 

Hehe thats really nice! I always knew that the -p versions of the thinkpads suck  :Smile: 

----------

## rhill

oh just pull them out and slap them on the table already.

----------

## jlward4th

So I just finished switching my root partition over to ext3 and building a new kernel based on your config...

```
Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:

,----------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU  | Sys CPU |

+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+

| Write          40 MBs |    1.9 s |  20.742 MB/s |   0.6 %  |  13.9 % |

| Random Write   16 MBs |    2.0 s |   7.920 MB/s |   0.6 %  |   4.6 % |

| Read           40 MBs |    0.0 s | 1369.113 MB/s |  10.3 %  |  89.0 % |

| Random Read    16 MBs |    0.0 s | 1222.327 MB/s |   7.8 %  |  86.0 % |

`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

Tiotest latency results:

,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item         | Average latency | Maximum latency | % >2 sec | % >10 sec |

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+

| Write        |        0.011 ms |       11.184 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Write |        0.005 ms |        0.250 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Read         |        0.003 ms |        0.439 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Read  |        0.003 ms |        0.115 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

|--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------|

| Total        |        0.006 ms |       11.184 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

`--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------'
```

Better, but still not as good as it should be...  This is driving me nuts.  I don't know what else to try.

----------

## Phlogiston

 *jlward4th wrote:*   

> So I just finished switching my root partition over to ext3 and building a new kernel based on your config...
> 
> Better, but still not as good as it should be...  This is driving me nuts.  I don't know what else to try.

 

Hmm you have a different Harddisk type don't you? But it has exactly the same size? Thats a bit strange... Probably something is wrong with your drive... I can't explain...

----------

## Phlogiston

Hi again, you were talking about different filesystem and I'm wondering which partition that bechmark is using?

----------

## Phlogiston

Hey lets change the test a bit, to see if it makes any changes:

```

tiotest -f 100

Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:

,----------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU  | Sys CPU |

+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+

| Write         400 MBs |   37.7 s |  10.617 MB/s |   0.3 %  |   6.3 % |

| Random Write   16 MBs |    6.7 s |   2.348 MB/s |   0.0 %  |   1.1 % |

| Read          400 MBs |   27.5 s |  14.551 MB/s |   0.3 %  |   2.7 % |

| Random Read    16 MBs |   23.7 s |   0.660 MB/s |   0.0 %  |   0.3 % |

`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

Tiotest latency results:

,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item         | Average latency | Maximum latency | % >2 sec | % >10 sec |

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+

| Write        |        1.351 ms |     1859.459 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Write |        0.542 ms |      679.844 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Read         |        0.890 ms |      856.664 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Read  |       20.289 ms |      258.514 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

|--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------|

| Total        |        1.470 ms |     1859.459 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

`--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------'

```

What do you get with -f 100?

----------

## jlward4th

By default tiotest uses the current directory.  I ran all my tests in my root partition.  Here's my results for -f 100: 

```
,----------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU  | Sys CPU |

+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+

| Write         400 MBs |   20.8 s |  19.231 MB/s |   0.9 %  |  17.2 % |

| Random Write   16 MBs |   13.8 s |   1.135 MB/s |   0.0 %  |   0.8 % |

| Read          400 MBs |    0.3 s | 1300.640 MB/s |  35.8 %  | 235.1 % |

| Random Read    16 MBs |    0.0 s | 1180.582 MB/s |  15.1 %  |  75.5 % |

`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

Tiotest latency results:

,-------------------------------------------------------------------------.

| Item         | Average latency | Maximum latency | % >2 sec | % >10 sec |

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------+

| Write        |        0.074 ms |      381.458 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Write |        0.007 ms |        0.966 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Read         |        0.008 ms |      184.988 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

| Random Read  |        0.003 ms |        0.119 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

|--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------|

| Total        |        0.040 ms |      381.458 ms |  0.00000 |   0.00000 |

`--------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------+-----------'

```

Everything looks good except Random Write.  And btw, I think that your drive is 5400rpm and mine is 7200.

----------

## Phlogiston

 *jlward4th wrote:*   

> 
> 
> Everything looks good except Random Write.  And btw, I think that your drive is 5400rpm and mine is 7200.

 

Thats true! Strange yes...

----------

