[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707040621170.32656@p34.internal.lan>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some NCQ numbers...
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> Well. It looks like the results does not depend on the
>>> elevator. Originally I tried with deadline, and just
>>> re-ran the test with noop (hence the long delay with
>>> the answer) - changing linux elevator changes almost
>>> nothing in the results - modulo some random "fluctuations".
>>
>> I see. Thanks for testing.
>
> Here are actual results - the tests were still running when
> I replied yesterday.
>
> Again, this is Seagate ST3250620AS "desktop" drive, 7200RPM,
> 16Mb cache, 250Gb capacity. The tests were performed with
> queue depth = 64 (on mptsas), drive write cache is turned
> off.
I found AS scheduler to be the premium and best for single-user performance.
You want speed? Use AS.
http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/sched/cfq_vs_as_vs_deadline_vs_noop.html
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists