linux-kernel - Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070213112758.5920a28e@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:27:58 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Martin A. Fink" <fink@....mpg.de>,
	Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@...d.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SATA-performance: Linux vs. FreeBSD

> there's several tunables you can do;
> 1) increase /sys/block/<device>/queue/nr_requests
>    the linux default is on the low side
> 5) echo a larger value into /sys/block/<device>/queue/max_sectors_kb
>    the default seems to be 512 which is... really low. The hw max is in
>    another file in that directory; if you want max throughput set the
>    max_sectors_kb value to the hw max. (you pay in terms of fairness for

There are two more factors that play into #1 and #5. Firstly there is a
per command completion overhead in ATA without NCQ being active and that
isn't yet a heavily optimised libata path. Secondly erase block size
matters with flash drives so the bigger each I/O the better erase block
behaviour we should get.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/