From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oddbj=F8rn?= Kvalsund Subject: Re: Possible performance issue with sata_sil og Gigabyte i-Ram Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:17:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20070124111700.GL1054@nixx.no> References: <20070123205301.GK1054@nixx.no> <20070123232113.0d6e8b4e@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from nixx.no ([80.68.92.62]:34375 "EHLO nixx.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751195AbXAXLVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:21:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070123232113.0d6e8b4e@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Tue 23 Jan 23:21, Alan wrote: > > Other people using this device report of read/write speeds constant= ly > > maxing out their SATA150 or PCI-bus. Is this my sil3114 being the > > bottleneck? Other devices on the PCI-bus? My general system (see li= nk to >=20 > Possibly. 80Mbytes/sec seems to be about all you get from PCI bus wit= h > many machines. Remember the SATA150, UDMA/133 and PCI bus limits are > largely theoretical, especially as most ATA controllers have signific= ant > turn around time between commands and cannot queue. Ah, alright. I'll try to remove the other cards on the PCI-bus to see i= f that makes a difference, if not; well I guess 80 MB/s isn't that bad :) > > from what I can tell from dmesg (U)DMA should be enabled for this d= rive. > > I have tried enabling UDMA/133 for the controller (in sata_sil.c), = giving this > > output on boot: >=20 > If you are getting 80Mb/sec then UDMA is enabled 8) Good! > > I'm using the old piix-driver (not libata) for the IBM-disk, as I w= as > > having some problems getting it to work with the libata-driver. I m= ight >=20 > What sort of problems ? I've got an iRAM here for debugging/testing > courtesy of a company using them and the one I have seems to pass all= the > testing I've thrown at it. Sorry, I was cramming too much information into that sentence. I was having problems getting the _IBM IDE-disk_, not the i-Ram, workin= g with the ata_piix. I haven't really dug deep into this, but I suspect it's probably something silly like the drive changing identifier (hda -> sda) or something like that. Do you thing this (using the regular piix-driver for the IBM system dis= k and the sata_sil-driver for the i-Ram) could be causing any performance problems? --=20 Oddbj=F8rn Kvalsund