microSD card performance comparison
#5
(03-22-2016, 11:20 AM)janjwerner Wrote: I respectfully disagree. The provided information with links to amazon is helpful.
Sure you will have variations between units of same type

Yeah, I could submit for the very same label (not card!) 'SanDisk Extreme Pro 8GB UHS-I' 3 different results that vary a lot. All tested in the same board. How's that possible? Since I sit in front of the 3 cards I could notice the differences (gold vs. black and obviously the two black ones from different years showing different random I/O performance).

Will users that submit results for their card take notice? Nope, since they don't even know that these differences exist when they don't own a couple of cards. So this will be a collection of performance numbers partially without meaning (or only of historical interest).

If I already bought a card I should test it always myself and never rely on results published in a spreadsheet somewhere since not performance numbers in a spreadsheet matter but my card's performance (see above: Which of the 3 results to choose from if users start to submit conflicting results? Most probably simply the first entry you stumble accross) . 

It should be noted that you can buy fake cards everywhere and it's also not that hard to enter the words 'amazon fake micro sd card' or 'amazon counterfeit micro sd card' into a search engine to start to understand that the supply chain (where the fake products origin from) does not start at the retailer but somewhere in Asia. It's impossible for a big retailer to protect you from buying fake cards, the only chance you have is to immediately test the card you receive and return it asking for a refund when you got a fake card.

So this spreadsheet will be filled partially with meaningless results and as a user you can't rely on the results published there since they have zero relevance for the card you bought. So why looking into it anyway? If you search for a performant card (especially random I/O) then why searching through a spreadsheet collecting all sorts of questionable cards (or results) when there are also lists available that only collect top performers worth a buy? The most important factor for any SD/TF card used with an SBC is random I/O! Therefore it's close to moronic to choose anything else than the 5 top performers when it's about to buy a new card.

Regarding comparison of the results it's also pretty easy. Both RPi and Pine64 max out regarding sequential transfer speeds at approx. 22MB/s. If you see lower results then it's most probably the card's fault and if you see ~22MB/s then you know it's fast enough regarding sequential transfer speeds. Regarding random I/O it only depends on the card in question. In other words: The two tables containing well known top performers can be used for Pine64 without any doubt.

(03-22-2016, 11:45 AM)falk.ben@gmail.com Wrote: I think all these reasons taken together justify creating a new table of benchmarked cards. But, as I said, if you don't want to use it, no one is forcing you to.

I won't use this table for sure since I sometimes do benchmarking for a living. Without controlling every detail the chance that you collect numbers without meaning is pretty high, especially on Linux/Unix where background jobs might render benchmarks results useless easily.

People will submit results showing bad sequential/random I/O not caused by the card but since they played a bit around while testing, a cronjob in the background has been busy updating locatedb or the system is doing unattended package upgrades while they ran the single test execution they blindly trust in. Running benchmarks in a 'fire and forget' manner is always wrong but will be the default when random people submit random results.

I know that people love numbers (so easy to compare) and almost never think about the meaning of these numbers or whether they can be trusted or not. Or in other words: results that have been measured correctly (repeating the test at least 3 times and controlling setup/procedure using approriate tools -- iotop/iostat in this case) will be a rare exception.

I hope that sounds not rude but at least discouraging enough to stop the whole approach? :-)


Messages In This Thread
RE: microSD card performance comparison - by Andrew2 - 03-22-2016, 01:28 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Flashing SD card over USB ccben 5 8,543 07-25-2017, 10:11 PM
Last Post: ccben
  How do I change the default sound card? zirconx 2 5,319 10-02-2016, 05:10 AM
Last Post: pfeerick
  RHEL Performance Tuning Guide xalius 0 2,066 07-31-2016, 03:01 AM
Last Post: xalius
  MicroSD card won't format Andr3w 2 4,585 07-12-2016, 11:10 AM
Last Post: Luke
  Making a Ubuntu Server image for SD Card insignia96 3 6,509 04-06-2016, 09:46 PM
Last Post: insignia96
  How to get Ubuntu SD Card Bob123456789 7 10,532 01-25-2016, 04:08 PM
Last Post: Ghost

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)