linux-kernel - Re: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?

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: <46128175.2090506@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:31:49 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Paa Paa <paapaa125@...mail.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lower HD transfer rate with NCQ enabled?

Paa Paa wrote:
> I'm using Linux 2.6.20.4. I noticed that I get lower SATA hard drive 
> throughput with 2.6.20.4 than with 2.6.19. The reason was that 2.6.20 
> enables NCQ by defauly (queue_depth = 31/32 instead of 0/32). Transfer 
> rate was measured using "hdparm -t":
> 
> With NCQ (queue_depth == 31): 50MB/s.
> Without NCQ (queue_depth == 0): 60MB/s.
> 
> 20% difference is quite a lot. This is with Intel ICH8R controller and 
> Western Digital WD1600YS hard disk in AHCI mode. I also used the next 
> command to cat-copy a biggish (540MB) file and time it:
> 
> rm temp && sync && time sh -c 'cat quite_big_file > temp && sync'
> 
> Here I noticed no differences at all with and without NCQ. The times 
> (real time) were basically the same in many successive runs. Around 19s.
> 
> Q: What conclusion can I make on "hdparm -t" results or can I make any 
> conclusions? Do I really have lower performance with NCQ or not? If I 
> do, is this because of my HD or because of kernel?

hdparm -t is a perfect example of a synthetic benchmark.  NCQ was 
designed to optimize real-world workloads.  The overhead gets hidden 
pretty well when there are multiple requests in flight simultaneously, 
as tends to be the case when you have a user thread reading data while a 
kernel thread is asynchronously flushing the user thread's buffered 
writes.  Given that you're breaking even with one user thread and one 
kernel thread doing I/O, you'll probably get performance improvements 
with higher thread counts.

	-- Chris
-
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/