Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Hardware

NCQ Improves Performance for SATA Hard Drives 15

Posted by timothy from the bet-those-drives-are-dizzy-after-a-while dept.
EconolineCrush writes "Command queuing has long been a feature of high-end SCSI drives meant for demanding multi-user environments, but it's now starting to pop up in the latest generation of desktop Serial ATA drives. Desktop Serial ATA drives are generally subjected to far less demanding single-user loads, making command queuing's benefits a little harder to quantify. However, it turns out that Native Command Queuing can significantly improve the performance of Serial ATA hard drives with disk-intensive desktop multitasking. With dual-core processors trickling into the mainstream and multitasking poised to become more popular, Native Command Queuing could prove essential for desktop hard drives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NCQ Improves Performance for SATA Hard Drives More

NCQ Improves Performance for SATA Hard Drives

Comments Filter:
  • But is it actually news?
    • What about this is news? Well for years I have been telling people that SCSI drives are not just overpriced IDE drives with a different connector, and that the speed difference is due to the protocol, not the raw transfer rate, and I've heard people with their egos bruised by not having the fastest computer parts tell me "no it's not, look at these crappy single-user benchmark scores, the IDE drives with 16 MB of write-back cache turned on by default outperform the scsi disk that are actually writing the da
  • Command queueing allows the host to disconnect while the drive completes a command. The drive isn't any faster. Queuing only speeds up operation if there are multiple drives so commands would otherwise wait for the bus to be free. This only helps in RAID, or when you have a drive and a CD connected SATA.
    • Command queueing allows the drive to complete requests out of order. So, say the OS issues two read requests, the first one requires a head seek, the second for a block already in the drive's cache. In a drive with command queueing the second request can complete while the head is moving to read the block for the first request.
      • For your example to work, the block has to be in the drive's 1MB or so of cache, but not the much larger OS block cache. One possibility would be if the drive is doing readahead, but not the OS, and the data is sequential on disk. But it can also be bad to do readahead since it slows down non-sequential I/O, so it would not normally be turned on on the disk. Hmmm.

        Another example would be if the disk does an elevator sort on its requests and satisfies the shortest seeks first. But this can cause long delay
        • There are better algorithms than elevator, especially since the disk knows it's rotational position and elevator doesn't even use that info.

          The specific algorithm used to makes a group of outstanding requests complete the fastest is up to the disk, some will have good algorithms others will not. The point is that without having command queueing in the protocol you can't use ANY algorithm, and are stuck with in-order seeking.
          • Disks have fewer platters than they used to, so this optimization is less useful than it used to be. The Seagate 120 GB drive with NCQ only has two platters (4 heads). But I suppose you're right overall. A smart scheduler should be able to get some speedup even with just one disk on the bus. They also have an 8MB cache on these things, which is bigger than I expected.
    • hmm... did you actually read TFA? it has a good and simple explanation complete with illustration to show you what NCQ is about, and it's the very first part of the article.....

  • How is this different from TCQ (Tagged Command Queuing)? Isn't this already present in SATA implementations?

    -molo
  • isn't ncq supported at least since nforce4 chipsets? i have a ncq capable hd in my desktop and didn't pay more than normal. so it can't be that new and shiny to be on slashdot, can it?
  • From here [storagereview.com]:
    June 25, 2004

    ...

    From the plethora of data presented above, we can draw several conclusions:

    1. SATA TCQ and SATA RAID have the potential to deliver benefits to the server market just as great as those of SCSI TCQ and SCSI RAID.

    ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close