Thomas Løcke wrote:

> Lester Caine wrote:
>> Well cached is a tenth of yours - 337Mb/sec but buffered is 84Mb/sec so I
>> don't see that is a bottleneck particularly?
>
> This does seem very low to me. I'm not sure it's the one and only source
> of your problems, but 337 is very low for cached performance.

OK I've checked the other two Linux machines all three with the same
motherboard, but different disk arrangements, and the first is less than half
the speed of the other two on cached performance, but seems much the best on
buffered performance. All three are AMD64 4200X2's with DDR2 memory, although
the other to only have 2Gb each.

Windows XP is running on exactly the same hardware ( a waste I know ) but is
three times faster - so where do I go next :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php