OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical > Applications

LarsenCommander - new test version

<< < (8/8)

Andi B.:
Speed tests with SSDs vary on my system. I've tested with -
Samsung SSD 850 PRO 256GB
Samsung SSD 870 EVO 2TB
Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB
Crucial CT500MX500SSD1

It's sometimes not clear why copying from one SSD to another is faster with some setting while it's a bit slower with another target or source. I ever thought the maximum throughput you can get with an OS/2 system is copy from CLI cause a GUI program with progress indicator will always lower performance (the progress indicator needs to be update while CLI copy only waits for disk to accept new data, CLI does not even check CTRL-C). To my findings this is still true with disks although now LCMD comes very close to CLI. But in the last months I've even found scenarios where copying with LCMD is much faster than CLI copy (which TTBOMK uses 4k fixed buffer).

You may think copying with LCMD should be faster when not much else is running at the same time. But I've even scenarios where copying is actually a bit faster when LCMD lost the focus and some other heavy task are running. Once I even need a reboot to get the copy speed from/to a specific source/target to the level I'm used to. It was about 20% slower for unknown reason before.

Bottom line is it needs a lot of tests to get reproducible results. In most scenarios you can't get the same full speed with LCMD than with CLI but we are very close to that. Facts based on my tests for single big files are -
- Samba is way slower than ftp (more than 1,5 times slower here), both via netdrive *)
- for SSDs and harddisks LCMD is not exactly as fast als CLI copy but very close to it
- Ramdisk is way slower than SSD or harddisks (JFS is faster than HPFS but still 3 times slower)
- Peak values may be very high cause of SSD (and JFS) cache

*) Samba is way faster than FTP with a lot of small files I think because of it's directory caching which FTP is missing

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page