[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Some NCQ numbers...

Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Well. It looks like the results does not depend on the
> elevator. Originally I tried with deadline, and just
> re-ran the test with noop (hence the long delay with
> the answer) - changing linux elevator changes almost
> nothing in the results - modulo some random "fluctuations".

I see. Thanks for testing.

> In any case, NCQ - at least in this drive - just does
> not work. Linux with its I/O elevator may help to
> speed things up a bit, but the disk does nothing in
> this area. NCQ doesn't slow things down either - it
> just does not work.
> The same's for ST3250620NS "enterprise" drives.
> By the way, Seagate announced Barracuda ES 2 series
> (in range 500..1200Gb if memory serves) - maybe with
> those, NCQ will work better?

No one would know without testing.

> Or maybe it's libata which does not implement NCQ
> "properly"? (As I shown before, with almost all
> ol'good SCSI drives TCQ helps alot - up to 2x the
> difference and more - with multiple I/O threads)

Well, what the driver does is minimal. It just passes through all the
commands to the harddrive. After all, NCQ/TCQ gives the harddrive more
responsibility regarding request scheduling.

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: 2007-07-04 03:23    [W:0.063 / U:15.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site