BlueSCSI Performance on Macintosh Plus: What speed do you get?

[68kPlus]

Hi everyone,
just wanting to know how fast your BlueSCSI (DB25 or internal) is on your Macintosh Plus. SCSI Accelerator is okay, as I use it too.
My current benchmark (with HDT Benchtest):
Sustained Read: 407KB/s - Low 397KB/s, Peak 416KB/s
Sustained Write: 220KB/s - Low 216KB/s, Peak 224KB/s

Average access time: 45ms
Average seek time: 0.0ms

Read transactions/second: 216
Write transactions/second: 152

Overall Index: 2.1

Thanks!

 

[liamur]

On my Plus (I'm using Transoft Pro 4.0 for testing and r0w0s6 SCSI Accelerator), I get average ~13 ms seek and 2.05 ms access, with max read/write at 432 KB/s. It's impressive, but I think the access times are much too high, so I'm planning on testing with some other SD cards. That data is with a Sandisk something-or-other formatted as exFAT, so it's a good card, but it's been used quite a bit. I have a new Sandisk Max Endurance that I want to try next.

 

[liamur]

I had another theory: maybe large files slow down the SdFat library (what's used under the hood). The disk file I was testing on was 1 GB, I'm going to try a 100MB file and see if there's any difference.

 

[liamur]

why spam here, out of all the Compact Mac threads...

I ran the tests I mentioned. File size makes no difference, and the card doesn't matter either. I tested with a brand-new 256 GB Samsung EVO Select, pre-formatted as exFAT, and the access time was identical to the original Sandisk Ultra. I also ran an overwrite format on the Ultra (it's been used for a lot of Raspberry Pi images and I wasn't sure what effect those have), with no change.

I'm focused on access time because I have a Mac coding project that needs to get reasonably small amounts very quickly, something which I think should be possible with the BlueSCSI. I looked at the BlueSCSI code, and it's just invoking the SdFat `FsFile->read()` function to a specific location when it needs to read the HDA file. I would not expect this to be consistently slow, so I'm thinking that the Mac is the reason for the slow access times.

 

[68kPlus]

why spam here, out of all the Compact Mac threads...

I ran the tests I mentioned. File size makes no difference, and the card doesn't matter either. I tested with a brand-new 256 GB Samsung EVO Select, pre-formatted as exFAT, and the access time was identical to the original Sandisk Ultra. I also ran an overwrite format on the Ultra (it's been used for a lot of Raspberry Pi images and I wasn't sure what effect those have), with no change.

I'm focused on access time because I have a Mac coding project that needs to get reasonably small amounts very quickly, something which I think should be possible with the BlueSCSI. I looked at the BlueSCSI code, and it's just invoking the SdFat `FsFile->read()` function to a specific location when it needs to read the HDA file. I would not expect this to be consistently slow, so I'm thinking that the Mac is the reason for the slow access times.

I wonder if a really cheap and older SD card would make a difference? I have a lot and I am willing to try if anyone is interested.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Mac responsible for the slow access times. Mine are pretty high too I think, and that's probably just the Plus.

 

[crazyfrog]

I like fast SSDs as well but I like money more, bluescsi isnt exactly an immature project but its based around supporting macintosh and atari on budget parts which makes it awesome. There are faster stm32 chips than the cheap blue pill so perhaps we cam get an upgrade in the future.


In comparison rascsi is based around the scsi interface and the exciting hardware of raspberry pi and outperforms the scsi2sd https://github.com/akuker/RASCSI/wiki/Benchmarks
Its not the raspberry pi foundations fault they cant supply enough but the work is done and its good