In message <[email protected]> Vincent Sanders <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:39:05PM +0100, cj wrote: >> In article <[email protected]>, >> David Pitt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hmm! My Iyonix did over three time better than that, and there was >> > no "too slow" message. My test piece was http://www.dailymail.co.uk >> > because that is a particularly heavy duty site. >> >> OK. A lot of random browsing around that site led to: >> >> (5743.130000) content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store >> average bandwidth 531777 bytes/second >> >> which is over 5 times faster. However, I thought we would be talking >> drive speed, which shouldn't be affected by the download speed of any >> particular site, or am I completely up the wrong alley? > > That value is *purely* the total amount *written* to disc divided by > how long the write operations took. The write time includes all > directory creation/seek operations etc. rather than just the raw disc > write performance. > > Anything above a megabit a second (125000 bytes/second) will not > trigger the warning about low write speed. I set it there because > below that value the overheads of disc caching exceed the benefit of > simply fetching data from the network. > I have some results from my Pi B (system details below): 1. Accessing Steve's Digicams Reviews (a content-heavy page) http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/ content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store average bandwidth 6426 bytes/second; 2. Accessing Digital Photography Review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews content/llcache.c llcache_finalise 3352: Backing store average bandwidth 449 bytes/second. Pretty dire, and unsurprisingly the 'inadequate bandwidth' warning was triggered in both cases. NetSurf is running on my system SD card, a Kingston 4GB class 10 item. Other system details: NS 3.4 [Dev CI #2696], RasPi B @ 900MHz, RO 5.21 [RC12, 12-Jan-15]. -- George
