On Mon, May 30 2005, Greg Stark wrote:
> > ATA has a limitation of 32 tags, so queued write cache off won't beat
> > unqueued write cache on in any modern drive.
>
> People earlier were quoting 30-40% gains with NCQ enabled. I assumed
> those were with the same drive in otherwise the same configuration,
> presumably with write-caching enabled.
If you are talking about the numbers I quoted, those were for random
read performance.
> Without any form of command queueing write-caching imposes a severe
> performance loss, the question is how much of that loss is erased when
> NCQ is present.
I'll try some random write tests with write caching disabled.
> People actually tend to report that IDE drives are *faster*. Until
> they're told they have to disable write-caching on their IDE drives to
> get a fair comparison, then the performance is absolutely abysmal. The
> interesting thing is that SCSI drives don't seem to take much of a
> performance hit from having write-caching disabled while IDE drives
> do.
NCQ will surely lessen the impact of disabling write caching, how much
still remains to be seen. You could test, if you have the hardware :)
Real life testing is more interesting than benchmarks.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
