Jens Axboe <[email protected]> writes:
> SATA is still pretty fast without NCQ,
...
> People have lived happily without NCQ support in SATA for years, I'm
> sure you could too :-)
It kind of depends on your application. For applications that require write
caching disabled like Postgres et al I suspect NCQ will make a *much* bigger
difference.
I would be interested to see those benchmarks people were posting earlier
claiming 30-40% difference retested with write caching disabled. I suspect
disabling write caching will demolish the non-NCQ performance but have a much
smaller effect on NCQ-enabled performance.
Currently Postgres strongly recommends SCSI drives and the belief is that it's
the tagged command queuing that allows SCSI drives to perform well without
resorting to data integrity destroying write caching.
--
greg
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
