On Wed, Jul 04 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 10:19 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually, in many ways the result support a theory of SCSI TCQ Jens used
> when designing the block layer. The original TCQ theory held that the
> drive could make much better head scheduling decisions than the
> Operating System, so you just used TCQ to pass all the outstanding I/O
> unfiltered down to the drive to let it schedule. However, the I/O
> results always seemed to indicate that the effect of TCQ was negligible
> at around 4 outstanding commands, leading to the second theory that all
> TCQ was good for was saturating the transport, and making scheduling
> decisions was, indeed, better left to the OS (hence all our I/O
> schedulers).
Indeed, the above I still find to be true. The only real case where
larger depths make a real difference, is a pure random reads (or writes,
with write caching off) workload. And those situations are largely
synthetic, hence benchmarks tend to show NCQ being a lot more beneficial
since they construct workloads that consist 100% of random IO. Real life
is rarely so black and white.
Additionally, there are cases where drive queue depths hurt a lot. The
drive has no knowledge of fairness, or process-to-io mappings. So AS/CFQ
has to artificially limit queue depths competing IO processes doing
semi (or fully) sequential workloads, or throughput plummets.
So while NCQ has some benefits, I typically tend to prefer managing the
IO queue largely in software instead of punting to (often) buggy
firmware.
--
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]
