Linux disk benchmark utility?

[Quattro Pete]

I am a linux newbie, so please bear with me. So far, everything I'm finding isn't very user friendly and requires executing a bunch of CLI commands. I guess that's the beauty of linux, but isn't there some simple GUI-driven user-friendly app for linux (ubuntu) that can do what CrystalDiskMark or ATTO can do in Windows?

Thanks!

 

[uc50ic4more]

I have always thought the Phoronix Test Suite was the standard.

Check these out if you require a GUI:

http://www.junauza.com/2012/05/best-system-benchmarking-tools-for.html

http://www.howtogeek.com/111617/how-to-benchmark-your-linux-system-3-open-source-benchmarking-tools/

 

[Quattro Pete]

Thanks. From the links you provided, only Iozone and Bonnie do disk benchmarking, but they don't have a GUI.

Will try to run Bonnie from CLI now.

 

[OVERKILL]

hdparm is CLI but pretty easy to use

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
hdparm is CLI but pretty easy to use

Is it basically the hdparm -t command or can it do more elaborate benchmarking stuff?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Also, Ubuntu 14.04 has this built in "Disks" utility, and under there, there is a "Benchmark" option, but every time I try to run it, it tells me "Error unmounting filesystem".

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Also, Ubuntu 14.04 has this built in "Disks" utility, and under there, there is a "Benchmark" option, but every time I try to run it, it tells me "Error unmounting filesystem".


You cannot unmount the filesystem you're logged into. Try it from live media.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
hdparm is CLI but pretty easy to use

Is it basically the hdparm -t command or can it do more elaborate benchmarking stuff?

It is a robust application; the only benchmarking application I have any experience with.

The MAN pages: http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?hdparm

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
You cannot unmount the filesystem you're logged into. Try it from live media.

Thanks! It worked!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
hdparm is CLI but pretty easy to use

Is it basically the hdparm -t command or can it do more elaborate benchmarking stuff?

It is a robust application; the only benchmarking application I have any experience with.

The MAN pages: http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?hdparm

 

[Quattro Pete]

Right, I meant read/write speed test. It looks like -t is it.

Thanks, all.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah, a combination of -t and -T work decently.

 

[Quattro Pete]

The whole thing started because of a USB Flash Drive I recently bought. It's 32 GB UBS 3.0 drive that Amazon reviewers were reporting very high transfer speeds on. So I bought one. It came formatted as FAT32. I ran a few benchmark tests in Windows 7 and was only getting about 43 MB/s read and 15 MB/s write maximum, which was significantly below what others were getting.

Then I formatted to ext4 and installed ubuntu on it and hdparm was showing more than 100 MB/s speeds. Then I formated to NTFS and tested in Windows again the next day, and now I'm getting over 200 MB/s read speed, but write speed still lacking somewhat at only about 37 MB/s, but still a lot better than what I was getting initially. I even formatted to FAT32 again, and am also getting similar speeds now as with NTFS.

Still scratching my head why the speeds were significantly lower on the first day, and I did run them multiple times to verify. Maybe somehow my PC did not recognize it as USB 3.0 initially and was treating it as a 2.0 device?

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I even formatted to FAT32 again, and am also getting similar speeds now as with NTFS.


This is just a guess, and must not be mistaken for fact. I wonder if when you re-formatted it FAT32 (in Windows?) perhaps it was formatted using Microsoft's exFAT filesystem, which I *think* (again: do not confuse with fact) was developed specifically for external devices and may provide you with better R/W performance on flash media.

I think these days Ubuntu and most Linux flavours now support exFAT out of the box (if not, there are user space exFAT drivers out there) but formatting a drive in Ubuntu separates exFAT and FAT. Perhaps Windows does not?

Also, the sector size can have profound effects on R/W speeds depending the files being thrown around. In my recording studio I used to format FAT32 with sectors as large as was allowed (256kB maybe?) instead of the standard 4kB. I have no clue how this factor manifests itself on flash media versus a HDD, though.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
This is just a guess, and must not be mistaken for fact. I wonder if when you re-formatted it FAT32 (in Windows?) perhaps it was formatted using Microsoft's exFAT filesystem, which I *think* (again: do not confuse with fact) was developed specifically for external devices and may provide you with better R/W performance on flash media.

Nah... W7 gives you distinct choices whether to format using NTFS, FAT32, or exFAT. I had chosen FAT32.

Quote:

I think these days Ubuntu and most Linux flavours now support exFAT out of the box (if not, there are user space exFAT drivers out there) but formatting a drive in Ubuntu separates exFAT and FAT.

Thanks. Didn't know that. I thought ext4 was the preferred format for Linux, so that's what I went with. Doesn't matter, really. If I ever need to access the contents of that drive in W7, there's a free utility out there called Ext2Fsd that makes it easy.

Quote:
Also, the sector size can have profound effects on R/W speeds depending the files being thrown around. In my recording studio I used to format FAT32 with sectors as large as was allowed (256kB maybe?) instead of the standard 4kB. I have no clue how this factor manifests itself on flash media versus a HDD, though.

Valid point. I don't know what the sector size was set to from the factory. When I re-formated to FAT32, I chose the default setting which ended up being 16 KB.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Thanks. Didn't know that. I thought ext4 was the preferred format for Linux, so that's what I went with.


ext4 **is** the preferred filesystem for a Linux installation. There are others with various types of benefits but ext4 is a commonality among them all.

It is just a considerable pain in the you-know-what to ever get Windows or Mac to effectively and reliably read and write ext2/3/4, if that is ever going to be a concern for you... If not, ext4 is probably what you're after!