lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?
Paa Paa wrote:
>>> 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?
>
It suggests that it's time to test with real load and see if deadline
works well for you in the general case.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-06 23:33    [W:0.055 / U:1.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site