Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 8 Dec 2012 23:07:40 -0500
From:      Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
To:        Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD for serious performance? (was: Re: 9.x -- New Install -- serious partition misalignment)
Message-ID:  <CAF6rxgnL-QX2R_QzMuhhTuqBywmURGnivu0uL5dhMw1ds_xUzg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121208230433.2c54f44a@kan.dyndns.org>
References:  <20121209014547.238070@gmx.com> <1830.1355025154@tristatelogic.com> <20121208230433.2c54f44a@kan.dyndns.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 December 2012 23:04, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:52:34 -0800
> "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
> "analysis" skipped.
>
>>
>> As regards to the Native Command Queuing.... all I can say is "Crap!"
>> I wasn't aware...until now... that FreeBSD did not support that.  That
>> really is a rather entirely serious issue.  But I do think that the
>> performance hit from that would be dwarfed by the performance hit that
>> could be caused by the AF misaligment problem.

>From my memory, if you use ahci(4) instead of the old ata(4) you have
NCQ.  If you still use ata(4), you don't.



-- 
Eitan Adler



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnL-QX2R_QzMuhhTuqBywmURGnivu0uL5dhMw1ds_xUzg>