dd is not a benchmark

Quicksearch

Disclaimer

The individual owning this blog works for Oracle in Germany. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.

Navigation

< links for 2010-01-10 | Hamburch ... >

Monday, January 11. 2010

dd was never a reasonable benchmark, albeit people were using this tools as one. Lisa Noordergraaf wrote an interesting article explaining why dd is an especially bad choice for benchmarking modern storage like SSDs: Pitfalls of Benchmarking Flash with dd(1M):

Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp in English, The IT Business at 10:00 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

All I can say to that is "Amen!"

The linked article goes very well into why dd(1M) is such a terrible tool for benchmarking. It's about as accurate for comparing drives as copying to/from them with pcfs(7FS)...

#1 Matt Lewandowsky (Homepage) on 2010-01-11 10:15

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_.
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry