From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 17 21:22:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA22667 for current-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quagmire.ki.net (root@quagmire.ki.net [205.150.102.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22662; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by quagmire.ki.net (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id AAA08522; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Michael Hancock cc: Satoshi Asami , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Iozone: local vs nfs drives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Michael Hancock wrote: > On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Satoshi Asami wrote: > > > * Did you have tagged-command queuing enabled? According to my tests, > > * that will make a BIG difference, if you have decent drives. > > > > I haven't seen tagged-queueing make much difference for reads. These > > are the kind of numbers we've seen before (off the top of my head): > > > > w/o tag with tag > > W R W R > > Quantum Atlas 6 7 6 7 > > Seagate 'Cuda 4 6 6 7 > > I guess we haven't addressed the original question though. No, it doesn't, but I think it might bring up another point... is there a way of having tagged-command queueing enabled by default? If there is the potential to see such a boost in performance as has been reported, at least in the 'write' department...is there a disadvantage to it that hasn't been brought up? Marc G. Fournier scrappy@ki.net Systems Administrator @ ki.net scrappy@freebsd.org