From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756791AbZBBC3T (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:29:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752297AbZBBC3H (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:29:07 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com ([209.85.218.12]:49318 "EHLO mail-bw0-f12.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbZBBC3F (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:29:05 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MCMGPimTv7Yo3aME35jr+3CtyCXAwGQECPNOv4O6R6+yPkxbsKH6a6FjssiPKrT/1+ ASAy/EKUYq/0qI++eeT88oGVysnhInuASlc7K9l1DextWvn3itmUvi/FOPygWBkqm9tc JPGNV0atoxdNnnNx9F3LvNe78VIgjHP6BUCNM= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4983DF0A.6030402@gmail.com> References: <77887e110901301623u746535f2q7dcc37cd40d2cc56@mail.gmail.com> <4983A446.5080809@shaw.ca> <77887e110901301725p64f5ab4fk341a9bfaf6715a7b@mail.gmail.com> <4983DF0A.6030402@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:29:03 +0100 Message-ID: <77887e110902011829g374dd368x67ef57a3a710c147@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: libata - anomaly performance with NCQ From: Bartosz SKOWRON To: Robert Hancock Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Robert Hancock wrote: > bonnie++ is one I've used, I'm sure there are others.. Of course, what do > you compare the results to.. Hmmm more tests == more confusions ;-) NCQ ENABLED: Version 1.03b ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP banan 6G 32681 99 81220 35 37915 31 32675 99 88157 28 286.0 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 3115 32 +++++ +++ 3774 38 3321 38 +++++ +++ 1004 10 NCQ DISABLED: Version 1.03b ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP banan 6G 32617 99 84305 36 36022 16 32889 99 88199 28 233.9 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 3866 40 +++++ +++ 5538 48 3668 38 +++++ +++ 1093 11 So it looks very similar but without ncq looks a bit better, doesn't it? something practical test: copy a movie file (~750MB) into /tmp (tmpfs): ncq: ~70-75MB/s noncq: ~65-70MB/s and hdparm once again: ncq: Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.06 seconds = 35.33 MB/sec noncq: Timing buffered disk reads: 258 MB in 3.01 seconds = 85.63 MB/sec Can you or anyone else analyze those results? They confuse me a lot cause they are sometimes in a conflict. And what results of bonnie++ should i compare to other tests? sequintal output:block ? or per? and here is my hdd: Model=ST9320421AS , FwRev=SD13 , SerialNo= 5TJ0DGSP Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs RotSpdTol>.5% } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=4 BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=16384kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=?16? CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=625142448 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120} PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6 AdvancedPM=yes: unknown setting WriteCache=enabled Drive conforms to: unknown: ATA/ATAPI-4,5,6,7 regards, bart