public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: "Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@gmail.com>,
	Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SATA NCQ support
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:37:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050530123706.GR7054@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050530121635.GQ7054@suse.de>

On Mon, May 30 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, May 30 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > People actually tend to report that IDE drives are *faster*. Until
> > > they're told they have to disable write-caching on their IDE drives to
> > > get a fair comparison, then the performance is absolutely abysmal. The
> > > interesting thing is that SCSI drives don't seem to take much of a
> > > performance hit from having write-caching disabled while IDE drives
> > > do.
> > 
> > NCQ will surely lessen the impact of disabling write caching, how much
> > still remains to be seen. You could test, if you have the hardware :)
> > Real life testing is more interesting than benchmarks.
> 
> With a few simple tests, I'm unable to show any write performance
> improvement with write back caching off and NCQ (NCQ with queueing depth
> of 1 and 16 tested). I get a steady 0.55-0.57MiB/sec with 8 threads
> random writes, a little over 5MiB/sec with sequential writes.
> 
> Reads are _much_ nicer. Sequential read with 8 threads are 23% faster
> with a queueing depth of 16 than 1, random reads are 85% (!!) faster at
> depth 16 than 1.
> 
> Testing was done with the noop io scheduler this time, to only show NCQ
> benefits outside of what the io scheduler can do for reordering.
> 
> This is with a Maxtor 7B300S0 drive. I would have posted results for a
> Seagate ST3120827AS as well, but that drive happily ignores any attempt
> to turn off write back caching. To top things off, it even accepts FUA
> writes but ignores that as well (they still go to cache).

Actually, I partly take that back. The Seagate _does_ honor drive write
back caching disable and it does show a nice improvement with NCQ for
that case. Results are as follows:

8 thread io case, 4kb block size, noop io scheduler, ST3120827AS.

Write cache off:

                Depth 1         Depth 30        Diff
Seq read:       18.94           21.51           +  14%
Ran read:        0.86            1.24           +  44%
Seq write:       6.58           19.30           + 193%
Ran write:       1.00            1.27           +  27%

Write cache on:

                Depth 1         Depth 30        Diff
Seq read:       18.78           21.58           +  15%
Ran read:        0.84            1.20           +  43%
Seq write:      24.49           23.26           -   5%
Ran write:       1.55            1.63           +   5%

Huge benefit on writes with NCQ when write back caching is off, with it
on I think the deviation is within standard jitter of this benchmark.


-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-30 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-27  7:03 [PATCH] SATA NCQ support Jens Axboe
2005-05-27  7:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  7:30   ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27  7:37     ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  7:47       ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27  7:56         ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27  8:24           ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  8:27           ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  8:28         ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  8:35           ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27  8:38             ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27  8:42               ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27 23:47                 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-27 13:18 ` Matthias Andree
2005-05-27 13:53   ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27 14:46     ` Matthias Andree
2005-05-27 14:58       ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-29 13:16         ` Matthias Andree
2005-05-29 16:36           ` Jeff Garzik
2005-05-30  2:35             ` Eric D. Mudama
2005-05-30  3:41         ` Greg Stark
2005-05-30  4:04           ` Eric D. Mudama
2005-05-30  6:21             ` Greg Stark
2005-05-30  6:33               ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-30 12:16                 ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-30 12:37                   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2005-05-30 14:51                     ` Jens Axboe
2005-05-27 16:00   ` Jeff Garzik
     [not found] <48Hix-88s-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <48N4N-4B5-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <48Pzt-6Kb-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
2005-05-31  0:00     ` Robert Hancock
2005-05-31  1:21       ` Jeff Garzik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050530123706.GR7054@suse.de \
    --to=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=edmudama@gmail.com \
    --cc=gsstark@mit.edu \
    --cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthias.andree@gmx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox