Re: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?

[Bill Davidsen]

Paa Paa wrote:
> > > Q: What conclusion can I make on "hdparm -t" results or can I make 
> > > any conclusions? Do I really have lower performance with NCQ or not? 
> > > If I do, is this because of my HD or because of kernel?
> >
> > What IO scheduler are you using? If AS or CFQ, could you try with 
> > deadline?
>
> I was using CFQ. I now tried with Deadline and that doesn't seem to 
> degrade the performance at all! With Deadline I got 60MB/s both with and 
> without NCQ. This was with "hdparm -t".
>
> So what does this tell us?
It suggests that it's time to test with real load and see if deadline 
works well for you in the general case.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/