From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Lord Subject: Re: Playing with SATA NCQ Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 10:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4299CD31.8020805@rtr.ca> References: <20050526140058.GR1419@suse.de> <429793C8.8090007@gmail.com> <42979C4F.8020007@pobox.com> <42979FA3.1010106@gmail.com> <20050528121258.GA17869@suse.de> <4299BD23.6010004@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpu1185.adsl.bellglobal.com ([207.236.110.166]:46861 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261324AbVE2OJz (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2005 10:09:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4299BD23.6010004@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Thonke Cc: Jens Axboe , Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org My basic hdparm timing test shouldn't show much of a difference with NCQ tests, becase hdparm just does a single request at a time, and waits for the results before issuing another. Now, kernel read-ahead may result in some command overlap and a slight throughput increase, but.. Something like dbench and/or bonnie++ are more appropriate here. Cheers