[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?
>>Q: What conclusion can I make on "hdparm -t" results or can I make any 
>>conclusions? Do I really have lower performance with NCQ or not? If I do,
>>is this because of my HD or because of kernel?
>What IO scheduler are you using? If AS or CFQ, could you try with deadline?

I was using CFQ. I now tried with Deadline and that doesn't seem to degrade
the performance at all! With Deadline I got 60MB/s both with and without
NCQ. This was with "hdparm -t".

So what does this tell us?

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-03 23:33    [W:0.075 / U:4.144 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site