[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Believed resolved: SATA kern-buffRd read slow: based on promise driver bug
    Linda Walsh wrote:
    > Is 'main' diff between NCQ/TCQ that TCQ can re-arrange 'write'
    > priority under driver control, whereas NCQ is mostly a FIFO queue?

    No, NCQ can reorder although I recently heard that windows issues
    overlapping NCQ commands and expects them to be processed in order (what
    were they thinking?).

    The biggest difference between TCQ and NCQ is that TCQ is for SCSI while
    NCQ is for ATA. Functional difference includes more number of available
    tags and ordered tags for TCQ. The former doesn't matter for single
    disk. The latter may make some difference but on single disk not by much.

    > Am trying to differentiate NCQ/TCQ and SAS v. SCSI benefits.
    > It seems both support (SAS & SATA) some type of port-multiplier/
    > multiplexor/ option to allow more disks/port.
    > However, (please correct?) SATA uses a hub type architecture while
    > SAS uses a switch architecture. My experience with network hubs vs.
    > switches is that network hubs can be much slower if there is
    > communication contention. Is the word 'hub' being used in the
    > "shared-communication media sense", or is someone using the term
    > 'hub' as a [sic] replacement for a 'switch'?

    Port multiplier is a switch too. It doesn't broadcast anything and
    definitely has forwarding buffers inside. An allegory which makes more
    sense is expander to router and port multiplier to switch. Unless you
    wanna nest them, they aren't that different.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-09 03:33    [W:0.021 / U:12.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site