[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?
Phillip Susi wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
>> Phillip Susi wrote:
>>> Sounds like this is a serious bug in the WD firmware.
>> For personal systems, yes. For servers, probably not a bug.
>> Disabling readahead means faster execution queued commands,
>> since it doesn't have to "linger" and do unwanted read-ahead.
>> So this bug is a "feature" for random access servers.
>> And a big nuisance for everything else.
> I think you misunderstand the bug. The bug is not that the drive
> disables internal readahead; the bug is that host supplied readahead
> requests work so horribly. It is a good thing that the drive allows the
> host to control the readahead, but something is wrong if the drive's
> readahead is WAY better than any the host can perform.

Well, in this case, it has already been determined that switching
to a different Linux I/O scheduler gives back most of the performance.

But the drive can do readahead better than the OS: With the OS,
everything is broken up into discrete requests, whereas with the
drive firmware, it can continuously update it's readahead projections,
even in the midst of a command. So it does have an advantage.

But again, only the WD Raptor seems to have serious problems here.
Other drives cope well with readahead + NCQ just fine.

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: 2007-04-10 06:01    [W:0.052 / U:6.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site