On 5/16/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ric Wheeler wrote:
> But when I test with my synchronous write load, I am going at 6 times
> the normal rate (i.e., the rate I see with barriers disabled) ;-)
Well, NCQ read/write commands have a 'FUA' bit... though maybe the NCQ
code forgot to check the global libata_fua.
Jeff
Is the workload a sequential write? SATA drives should be able to
keep up with the media if they use FUA for their consistency when
using NCQ.
Flush cache as a barrier mechanism will blow revs in sequential
workloads, especially using a write/flush write/flush technique.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
