Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 21:04:21 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Cc: Michael Thonke <iogl64nx@gmail.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Playing with SATA NCQ
Message-ID: <20050529190421.GB29770@suse.de>
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> <4299CD31.8020805@rtr.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4299CD31.8020805@rtr.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 951
Lines: 22

On Sun, May 29 2005, Mark Lord wrote:
> 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.

I don't like bonnie++ very much and dbench is very write intensive. I
would suggest trying tiotest, find it on sf.net. It gets easily readable
results and they are usually fairly consistent across runs if you limit
the RAM to something sensible (eg 256MB and using a data set size of
768MB).

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/