|
Windows 2000 Disk io performance Leonard Chung
|
| bet | 17/47 | | Sana | 30.03.2021 | | Hajmi | 1,33 Mb. | | #13789 |
Windows 2000 vs. NT4
Now we contrast Windows 2000 on “old” hardware with NT4 on “old” hardware. As Figure 8 indicates, peak sequential I/O performance under Windows 2000 is virtually identical to that of NT4SP6. Read and write performance, and their associated overheads, are the same as NT4SP6. This holds true with both basic and dynamic volumes. Just as in NT4SP6, the buffered read performance bug for requests above 64KB is gone.
Windows 2000 NTFS unbuffered write throughput is comparable to NT4SP6. Like NT4SP6, increased write depth increases throughput up to four deep writes. Beyond that, the device is saturated, and additional outstanding requests do not increase throughput.
Figure 8 – Windows 2000 Advanced Server buffered and unbuffered throughput on a Basic volume. These graphs are show the sequential I/O performance attained using basic volumes under Win2K. Win2K is shown as having an almost identical performance to NT4SP6. Differences in buffered write performance are due to drive banding. Buffered reads under Win2K don’t show a dip at 128KB and above as the performance bug which caused the dip in NT4SP3 buffered reads doesn’t exist in Win2K.
T
|
| |
