Reading the bottom line across, left to right:
15G
This test was run with the option
-s 15G
Bonnie used a 15-Gigabyte file to do the testing. For the numbers to be valid, the computer had better not have had more than about 200M of memory.
534
When writing the file by doing 750 million putc() macro invocations, Bonnie recorded an output rate of 534 K per second.
65.7
When writing the file by doing 750 million putc() macro invocations, the operating system reported that this work consumed 65.7% of one CPU's time. This is not very good; it suggests either a slow CPU or an inefficient implementation of the stdio interface.
1236
When writing the 750-Mb file using efficient block writes, Bonnie recorded an output rate of 1,236 K per second.
22.5
When writing the 750-Mb file using efficient block writes, the operating system reported that this work consumed 22.5% of one CPU's time.
419
While running through the 750-Mb file just creating, changing each block, and rewriting, it, Bonnie recorded an ability to cover 418 K per second.
17.5
While running through the 750-Mb file just creating, changing each block, and rewriting, it, the operating system reported that this work consumed 17.5% of one CPU's time.
564
While reading the file using 750 million getc() macro invocations, Bonnie recorded an input rate of 564 K per second.
74.3
While reading the file using 750 million getc() macro invocations, the operating system reported that this work consumed 74.3% of one CPU's time. This is amazingly high.
1534
While reading the file using efficient block reads, Bonnie reported an input rate of 1,534 K per second.
32.8
While reading the file using efficient block reads, the operating system reported that this work consumed 32.8% of one CPU's time.
35.0
Bonnie created 4 child processes, and had them execute 4000 seeks to random locations in the file. On 10% of these seeks, they changed the block that they had read and re-wrote it. The effective seek rate was 32.8 seeks per second.
8.3
During the seeking process, the operating system reported that this work consumed 8.3% of one CPU's time.