I wonder what throughput do you get when accessing SATA drives attached to the cubietruck or cubieboard2? I'm especially interested in sequential write speeds. What I've found so far on the net is this:
1) cubieboard (Intel X25-M SSD, "hdparm -t", http://saturn.ffzg.hr/rot13/index.cgi?cubieboard )
write: n/a / read: 153 MB/s
2) cubieboard2 (Intel 313 SSD, "hdparm -t", http://irclog.whitequark.org/linux-sunxi/2013-09-21 )
write: n/a / read: 69 MB/s
3) cubietruck (SAMSUNG SSD 830, partial wrong use of dd with raw device, http://tinyurl.com/pdzxl8v )
write: 148 MB/s, read: 106 MB/s
4) cubietruck (WD WD40EZRX HD, "iozone/bonnie++", my own tests: http://tinyurl.com/or6pzzu ):
write: 38 MB/s / read: 145 MB/s
The 148 MB/s writes to the Samsung SSD are obviously misleading since using dd without 'oflag=direct', a test size of just 957 MB on a linux system with 2 GB RAM might test system buffers/caches but neither the disk nor the SATA implementation of the board in question (BTW: The test results seem to be copy&paste from http://188.8.131.52/public/wp/?p=66 or vice versa).
Since I found not a single write performance result for a Cubieboard/Cubietruck over SATA I still have no clue whether my results can be considered typical or not (the HD I used is many times faster -- tested it on other systems as well).
Anyone here sharing his experiences or better results?
BTW: Since I didn't found iozone ARM binaries for Ubuntu 12.04 I created one myself:
http://kaiser-edv.de/downloads/iozone3_397-2ubuntu1_armhf.deb (md5sum: a94c8ee7a5efc1bb297b7220cc558f7c)
http://kaiser-edv.de/downloads/iozone3_397-2ubuntu1_armel.deb (md5sum: d13ae0963716da55597f577fd2f17980)
I've seen performance similar to what you reported here […]
I've also a "WandBoard" with SATA and Gbit Ethernet. It's based on an i.MX6 from Freescale (like the Nitrogen6X or SABRE from Boundary Devices), the SATA throughput is better or let's say more balanced (80-90 MB/sec write, +100 MB/sec read). But the Ethernet throughput is horrible without further adjustments as outlined here:
I believe people (like me ;-) read something about SATA and Gbit Ethernet and think 'hey that would build a cool NAS device too'. Unfortunately some devices have poor write rates when it comes to SATA other while accessing the board through the network and some combine both.
At the moment I believe only the Marvell Kirkwood based ARM boards (88F6281, 88F6282) perform good as a NAS (since both SATA and Gbit Ethernet allow high throughput simultaneously) even with less CPU power and way less RAM compared to cubieboard2/cubietruck. No wonder that many NAS vendors chose these SoMs.
But I still ask me whether the low SATA write speeds A10/A20 based devices seem to share are chipset or driver related?
BTW: At the moment I'm totally happy with my 'CubieNAS' used as a backup device for Macs. The backup process isn't that fast (12-15 MB/sec), the restore rates are perfectly fine (40-50 MB/sec) and the low power consumption is awesome.
A big 'thank you!' to all the people who contributed so much good work to let these tiny devices do so many fascinating things! :-)
the boards or systems I found were rather expensive (for example GuruPlug/DreamPlug) and lack both multimedia as well as GPIO expansion possibilities as you already mentioned. Maybe the best starting point for experiments are 'real' NAS devices -- they're cheaper and include already an enclosure :-)
But since they come already with loads of (user friendly) software playing around with this stuff seems a bit weird (unless you have very specific needs)
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> [Marvell Kirkwood based ARM boards]