From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 30 12:14:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE09B37B401 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from farley.org (dsl-64-194-106-77.telocity.com [64.194.106.77]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA0743E42 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:14:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from thor.farley.org (p88j9xptq0ox2dys@thor.farley.org [192.168.1.5]) by gw.farley.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8UJEJUT029551; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:14:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:14:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Sean Farley X-X-Sender: sean@thor.farley.org To: Mike Silbersack Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slow I/O responsiveness with UDMA133 In-Reply-To: <20020926211102.Q9440-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Message-ID: <20020930140925.G5254-100000@thor.farley.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:14, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean Farley wrote: > > > I just do not understand how a 5400 RPM UDMA 33 drive can beat a > > 7200 RPM UDMA 133 drive by 33% on sequential output blocks. > > Rumor has it that newer drives cannot write a single sector at a time, > and instead must read a whole cluster of sectors, add in the new > sector, and write back the whole cluster. That behavior sounds like > it would hurt sequentual performance substantially, as it would become > a lot of read-modify-write operations. That is interesting. I had not heard of that issue, even as a rumor, before. I see this hurting byte writes, but block writes may not be hurt by it. > > > Does the drive support tagged queueing? That should give you the > > > benefits of write caching with a little bit more safety. > > > > I thought only IBM had IDE drives which supported tags. No. The > > specs do not mention tags. > > Hm, I thought other vendors had started to support them, I guess they > decided not to. :| I think there are a few Maxtor SCSI drives with it, but I could not find mention on their site with regards to any IDE drives. It would be nice assuming it was done correctly. > I have no idea on what BIOS settings would be optimal. I doubt that > they'll make a real performance difference. None as far as I can see. You would not happen to have a non-RAID, UDMA100+, non-VIA system that you could run bonnie++ (-s256) on? It would at least show to me if my system is really all that far from the norm. Sean ----------------------- sean-freebsd@farley.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message