NCQ vs TCQ performance? - Hardware

This is a discussion on NCQ vs TCQ performance? - Hardware ; Hi In an article about the performance of sata raid controllers ( StorageReview: http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5 ) using NCQ or TCQ. it stated that TCQ is much faster than NCQ: "SATA TCQ and SATA RAID have the potential to deliver benefits to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

  1. NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    Hi

    In an article about the performance of sata raid controllers (
    StorageReview:
    http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5
    ) using NCQ or TCQ. it stated that TCQ is much faster than NCQ:

    "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."

    So by using a SATA-1 TCQ RAID controller and WD Raptor disks one can get
    close to SCSI performance. (Sata 2 does not actually give the same
    performance according other tests I have read.)

    The article was written in 2004, and in four years much may have
    happened with NCQ. So the question is, does anybody know if much has
    happened with NCQ? or can I still trust the articles conclusions in
    terms of its performance?

    regards

    tom

  2. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    TCQ was a disaster, it was built on top of a flawed attemp to make PATA multitask.
    I doubt anyone supports TCQ today, especially on SATA. Microsoft and Intel do NOT.

    NCQ performance varies from negative to positive compared to original IDE.
    You have to find some recent benchmarks, including both controllers and drives.

    "Tom Forsmo" wrote in message news:481f1b24$1@news.broadpark.no...
    > Hi
    >
    > In an article about the performance of sata raid controllers (
    > StorageReview:
    > http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5
    > ) using NCQ or TCQ. it stated that TCQ is much faster than NCQ:
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > So by using a SATA-1 TCQ RAID controller and WD Raptor disks one can get
    > close to SCSI performance. (Sata 2 does not actually give the same
    > performance according other tests I have read.)
    >
    > The article was written in 2004, and in four years much may have
    > happened with NCQ. So the question is, does anybody know if much has
    > happened with NCQ? or can I still trust the articles conclusions in
    > terms of its performance?
    >


  3. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?


    Eric Gisin wrote:
    > TCQ was a disaster, it was built on top of a flawed attemp to make PATA
    > multitask.
    > I doubt anyone supports TCQ today, especially on SATA. Microsoft and
    > Intel do NOT.


    Then I think you have been misinformed, some SATA disk support TCQ
    exceptionally well, such as the WD Raptor disks. Paired with a TCQ sata
    controller they outperform any NCQ disks on market. It actually comes
    close to SCSI performance, which no NCQ disks is able of achieving. Mind
    you this is with server type load. With single user load, the
    performance is somewhat lower than with NCQ. The reason for that is
    because TCQ is a more heavyweight protocol than NCQ, so you wont see a
    gain until the load is increased somewhat.

    You should read the entire article, it is quite interresting
    StorageReview:
    http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5

    > NCQ performance varies from negative to positive compared to original IDE.
    > You have to find some recent benchmarks, including both controllers and
    > drives.


    I have been looking around, and havent found much, neither benchmarks
    nor info about NCQ updates.

    regards

    tom

  4. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Tom Forsmo wrote:
    > Hi


    > In an article about the performance of sata raid controllers (
    > StorageReview:
    > http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5
    > ) using NCQ or TCQ. it stated that TCQ is much faster than NCQ:


    > "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."


    > So by using a SATA-1 TCQ RAID controller and WD Raptor disks one can get
    > close to SCSI performance. (Sata 2 does not actually give the same
    > performance according other tests I have read.)


    WD makes this claim for some time now, because they do not have
    SCSI disks. I think it is a marketing-lie.

    > The article was written in 2004, and in four years much may have
    > happened with NCQ. So the question is, does anybody know if much has
    > happened with NCQ? or can I still trust the articles conclusions in
    > terms of its performance?


    I think you copuld not trust it 2004 and you cannot trust it now.

    Arno

  5. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?


    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > WD makes this claim for some time now, because they do not have
    > SCSI disks. I think it is a marketing-lie.


    If you had read the article I references, you would see they have made
    measurements comparing the Raptor disk to both SCSI, SATA NCQ and SATA
    non-NCQ. And the Raptor is by far the fastest disk of the SATA types,
    for server type load. The results have been feed into a long standing
    peformance table where you can compare different types of disks, both
    SCSI and SATA types, if you sort it by performance, you will see SCSI
    holding the top positions, the highest performant sata disk mentioned on
    the list is the Raptor. After that you find the all the other SATAs.

    But my question is, has anything changed with NCQ. But after having
    studied it, I dont think any changes have occured. The NCQ
    implementation is really only an implementation of the TCQ simple mode.
    Simple mode alone gives some performance boost. The referenced article
    shows that NCQ disk is more suited for desktop load, while TCQ is more
    suited for server load. And that is why I suspect NCQ has not changed much.


    regards

    thomas

  6. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Tom Forsmo wrote:

    > Arno Wagner wrote:


    >> WD makes this claim for some time now, because they do not have
    >> SCSI disks. I think it is a marketing-lie.


    > If you had read the article I references, you would see they have made
    > measurements comparing the Raptor disk to both SCSI, SATA NCQ and SATA
    > non-NCQ. And the Raptor is by far the fastest disk of the SATA types,
    > for server type load. The results have been feed into a long standing
    > peformance table where you can compare different types of disks, both
    > SCSI and SATA types, if you sort it by performance, you will see SCSI
    > holding the top positions, the highest performant sata disk mentioned on
    > the list is the Raptor. After that you find the all the other SATAs.


    I did not calim that the Raptor was slow. What WD has claimed, however,
    time and again, is that the Raptor is just as good as an SCSI disk.
    It is not. It is, of course, faster than slower spinning (S)ATA
    drives, unless you are interessted primarily in linear performance.

    > But my question is, has anything changed with NCQ. But after having
    > studied it, I dont think any changes have occured.


    I agree.

    > The NCQ implementation is really only an implementation of the TCQ
    > simple mode. Simple mode alone gives some performance boost. The
    > referenced article shows that NCQ disk is more suited for desktop
    > load, while TCQ is more suited for server load. And that is why I
    > suspect NCQ has not changed much.


    It is also that on high-performance set-ups, the command reordering,
    buffering, etc. is done by the OS anyways. In extreme cases (e.g.
    an Oracle server) it is even done by the application. The disk can
    add a little, but not that much.

    Arno

  7. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?



    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > I did not calim that the Raptor was slow. What WD has claimed, however,
    > time and again, is that the Raptor is just as good as an SCSI disk.
    > It is not.


    I have never heard the WD marketing slogans. In any case, anyone knows
    that marketing is about exaggerating facts. Its always been that way, so
    if they have claimed its as fast?/good? as SCSI, its just marketing,
    otherwise we wouldn't need SCSI any more.

    But SCSI has other qualities which the Raptor or other SATAs does not
    have. E.g. SCSI scales with the load, which the Raptor does not. The
    Raptor only excels when the queue is larger than 16 commands, SCSI
    handles queues lower than that quite nicely in contrast. SCSI is also
    more stable, reliable and can handle top loads more stable than sata
    disks can.

    > It is, of course, faster than slower spinning (S)ATA
    > drives, unless you are interessted primarily in linear performance.


    What you are saying is that the only reason the raptor is faster is
    because of the spindle speed. which is not correct. Its is also faster
    because it uses TCQ instead of NCQ. But as stated, only for server loads.

    regards

    tom

  8. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Tom Forsmo wrote:


    > Arno Wagner wrote:


    >> I did not calim that the Raptor was slow. What WD has claimed, however,
    >> time and again, is that the Raptor is just as good as an SCSI disk.
    >> It is not.


    > I have never heard the WD marketing slogans. In any case, anyone knows
    > that marketing is about exaggerating facts. Its always been that way, so
    > if they have claimed its as fast?/good? as SCSI, its just marketing,
    > otherwise we wouldn't need SCSI any more.


    True.

    > But SCSI has other qualities which the Raptor or other SATAs does not
    > have.


    Also true.

    > E.g. SCSI scales with the load, which the Raptor does not. The
    > Raptor only excels when the queue is larger than 16 commands, SCSI
    > handles queues lower than that quite nicely in contrast. SCSI is also
    > more stable, reliable and can handle top loads more stable than sata
    > disks can.


    Agreed. SCSI also has multi-master capabilities and some other nice
    functional featuires.

    >> It is, of course, faster than slower spinning (S)ATA
    >> drives, unless you are interessted primarily in linear performance.


    > What you are saying is that the only reason the raptor is faster is
    > because of the spindle speed. which is not correct.


    No, that is not what I am saying. True, latency plays a role, but...

    > Its is also faster because it uses TCQ instead of NCQ. But as
    > stated, only for server loads.


    ... as you say. For mostly linear accesses TCQ/NCQ daoe not
    play a role and the lower bit density of the Raprors (and
    SCSI drives) slow them down to SATA comparable speeds.

    I expect by server loads you mean database loads, webserver
    loads and the like, i.e. multiple smaller reads from,
    potentially from different processes. Then the queuing
    model and latency are certainly or primary interest.

    Arno

  9. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> What you are saying is that the only reason the raptor is faster is
    >> because of the spindle speed. which is not correct.

    >
    > No, that is not what I am saying. True, latency plays a role, but...
    >
    >> Its is also faster because it uses TCQ instead of NCQ. But as
    >> stated, only for server loads.

    >
    > .. as you say. For mostly linear accesses TCQ/NCQ daoe not
    > play a role and the lower bit density of the Raprors (and
    > SCSI drives) slow them down to SATA comparable speeds.


    What do you mean by linear access, do you mean sequential
    reading/writing (as in reading/writing a large file in one)?

    > I expect by server loads you mean database loads, webserver
    > loads and the like, i.e. multiple smaller reads from,
    > potentially from different processes. Then the queuing
    > model and latency are certainly or primary interest.


    By server loads I mostly mean concurrent access by different
    threads/processes, which includes file access, database and so on. How
    high the load is, is not as interesting. Both servers and desktops can
    have a high load, but only servers will have a high concurrency level.

    So by putting the two comments togheter, what you are saying is that the
    Raptor is slower because sequntial read/write only as fast or slower
    than an ordinary NCQ disk? That is correct, but only in it self. The
    Raptor is designed to be an cheaper entry level server disk, not a
    desktop disk. So by that, the Raptor is faster, but only for server
    loads. If you use it in a desktop system its seems to be slower than an
    ordinary NCQ disk and that is because of the TCQ protocol overhead which
    in a SATA system does not scale as well as it does in a SCSI system.

    If one wants really fast disk access no matter what, I would go for a
    complete SCSI system. But SCSI is 3-5 times more expensive, in addition
    SCSI do not have as large disks as ATA does, at least which is as cheap.

    tom

  10. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Tom Forsmo wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>> What you are saying is that the only reason the raptor is faster is
    >>> because of the spindle speed. which is not correct.

    >>
    >> No, that is not what I am saying. True, latency plays a role, but...
    >>
    >>> Its is also faster because it uses TCQ instead of NCQ. But as
    >>> stated, only for server loads.

    >>
    >> .. as you say. For mostly linear accesses TCQ/NCQ daoe not
    >> play a role and the lower bit density of the Raprors (and
    >> SCSI drives) slow them down to SATA comparable speeds.


    > What do you mean by linear access, do you mean sequential
    > reading/writing (as in reading/writing a large file in one)?


    Yes.

    >> I expect by server loads you mean database loads, webserver
    >> loads and the like, i.e. multiple smaller reads from,
    >> potentially from different processes. Then the queuing
    >> model and latency are certainly or primary interest.


    > By server loads I mostly mean concurrent access by different
    > threads/processes, which includes file access, database and so on. How
    > high the load is, is not as interesting. Both servers and desktops can
    > have a high load, but only servers will have a high concurrency level.


    A Linux desktop can have high concurrency at high load without
    trouble, if the user is compent. That this is rather rare under
    Windows gets no argument from me.

    > So by putting the two comments togheter, what you are saying is that the
    > Raptor is slower because sequntial read/write only as fast or slower
    > than an ordinary NCQ disk? That is correct, but only in it self. The
    > Raptor is designed to be an cheaper entry level server disk, not a
    > desktop disk.


    Agreed. It is however often mistaken as a blazingly fast desktop
    "enthusiast" disk, which it is not.

    > So by that, the Raptor is faster, but only for server loads.


    Exactly.

    > If you use it in a desktop system its seems to be slower than an
    > ordinary NCQ disk and that is because of the TCQ protocol overhead which
    > in a SATA system does not scale as well as it does in a SCSI system.


    > If one wants really fast disk access no matter what, I would go for a
    > complete SCSI system. But SCSI is 3-5 times more expensive, in addition
    > SCSI do not have as large disks as ATA does, at least which is as cheap.


    Actually with modern OSes, often getting more RAM wil help a lot.
    For larger storage needs SCSI/SAS is the way to go. For smaller
    ones were low throughput on writes is acceptable, FLASH drives
    may also be an option. If the sustained write rate is low, writes
    can be speed up by more available RAM.

    But I agree, if you just want to change one thing, going to
    SCSI/SAS will give a significant boost with many practical loads.
    And if you make it RAID with a really good controller, you will
    also get better throughput (for RAID1 only on reads).

    Arno

  11. Re: NCQ vs TCQ performance?

    Tom Forsmo wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > In an article about the performance of sata raid controllers (
    > StorageReview:
    > http://www.storagereview.com/article...tml?page=0%2C5
    > ) using NCQ or TCQ. it stated that TCQ is much faster than NCQ:
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > So by using a SATA-1 TCQ RAID controller and WD Raptor disks one can
    > get close to SCSI performance. (Sata 2 does not actually give the same
    > performance according other tests I have read.)
    >
    > The article was written in 2004, and in four years much may have
    > happened with NCQ. So the question is, does anybody know if much has
    > happened with NCQ? or can I still trust the articles conclusions in
    > terms of its performance?
    >
    > regards
    >
    > tom

    Maybe it can help:
    http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/315/1

    With my best regards,

    --
    Nicola Taibi
    Web home page: http://whisky1767.altervista.org
    Photo home page: http://community.webshots.com/user/ntaibi
    Nikon photo album: http://www.nikonista.it/ntaibi
    e-mail: whisky1767@altervista.org


+ Reply to Thread