Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:11:31PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> That's the drive rejecting acoustic setting command probably because the >> drive doesn't support it. Nothing to worry about. More recent kernels >> won't whine about those anymore. > > Oh, thanks. I forgot that I tried to change acoustic setting. > >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=100M count=20 >>> 20+0 records in >>> 20+0 records out >>> 2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 117.053 s, 17.9 MB/s >>> >>> # dd if=file of=file1 bs=100M count=20 >>> 20+0 records in >>> 20+0 records out >>> 2097152000 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 161.721 s, 13.0 MB/s >> Write seems awfully sluggish. Does turning off NCQ help? You can turn >> off NCQ by echoing 1 to /sys/block/sdX/device/queue_depth. Also, which >> kernel is this test result from? > > Turning off NCQ does not help. I am currently on 2.6.23.9, but I just tried > 2.6.25-rc4 and it is the same. > >>> A similar drive in an ICH7 box shows more consistent results: >>> >>> # hdparm -t /dev/sda >>> >>> /dev/sda: >>> Timing buffered disk reads: 182 MB in 3.01 seconds = 60.48 MB/sec >>> >>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=100M count=100 >>> 100+0 records in >>> 100+0 records out >>> 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 242.908 s, 43.2 MB/s >>> >>> # dd if=file of=/dev/null bs=100M count=100 >>> 100+0 records in >>> 100+0 records out >>> 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 211.132 s, 49.7 MB/s >> Hmmm... indeed. Same kernel version? Can you post "hdparm -I" results >> of both drives? > > The kernel on the second box is also 2.6.23.9. Here are hdparm results for > identical drives: > > 1. Connected to SiI 3124/sata_sil24 w/ slow write: > > # hdparm -I /dev/sda > > /dev/sda: > > ATA device, with non-removable media > Model Number: WDC WD1600JS-75NCB1 > Serial Number: WD-WCANM1344866 > Firmware Revision: 10.02E01 > > # hdparm -I /dev/sda > > /dev/sda: > > ATA device, with non-removable media > Model Number: WDC WD1600JS-75NCB1 > Serial Number: WD-WCANM1356774 > Firmware Revision: 10.02E01 > > Also, few months ago instead of sata_sil24 I had my drives connected to > sata_mv (Supermicro 8-port) and performance was normal... Everything seems okay. I wonder where the difference is. Does "dd if=/dev/zero of=file oflags=direct bs=1M" make any difference? And can you vacate a raw partition and try it on there? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
