58 ms·
I'm surprised the data is elided for the last row, seems it would be the most interesting. At any rate 0.17 MB/sec (Kingston C10) 4k random write vs 8.2 MB/sec
by logicallee 11y ago
I'm surprised the data is elided for the last row, seems it would be the most interesting.
At any rate 0.17 MB/sec (Kingston C10) 4k random write vs 8.2 MB/sec (OWC) is a staggering 48x speed difference. That is like the difference between 1 Ghz and 20 Mhz. Very useful and interesting comparison.
- geerlingguy 11y agoAll those numbers were under 0.1 MB/sec, and I gave up on the 4K tests after they were running a couple hours. Excruciating!
- logicallee 11y agowrite that! :) ( "< 0.1 MB/sec"). Though I wonder if that isn't some faulty issue.
- geerlingguy 11y agoIt's not faulty; I've tried with a couple super-cheap/no-name cards, and they're all insanely slow (even a few class 6 or class 10 cards). Reading up on the flash industry, it looks like most manufacturers use flash from one or two main producers, and each smaller company uses the discarded/slower/cheapest parts, resulting in worse performance and reliability in the lowest rungs of the scale. [Edit: I've also updated the numbers in the post]
- logicallee 11y agothis is much bigger news than the comparison among real cards. These cards should not be sold - 100x slower isn't "working" for the same value of working. Your scale goes to 800x slower. that is the difference between a Ferrari (217 MPH or 350 KPH) and 0.27 MPH or 0.31 KPH. Walking speed is 3-4 MPH. So it's the difference between the fastest Ferrari... and less than 1/10th walking speed. It's the difference between the max speed of the fastest Ferraris, and literally scooting along on the floor, on your butt. That is much, much bigger news than the rest of your benchmark. These are faulty and unusable, by the same benchmark. Imagine if someone has one in their pi. I appreciate you running these benchmarks, by the way.