lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl
Quote from Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>:
>
> On 12-Feb-2004 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > the main difference is that 2.4 isn't in function of time, it's in
> > function of requests, no matter how long it takes to write a request,
> > so it's potentially optimizing slow devices when you don't care about
> > latency (deadline can be tuned for each dev via
> > /sys/block/*/queue/iosched/).
>
> IMHO it's the opposite. Transfer speed * seek time of some
> slow devices is lower than fast devices. For example:
>
> Hard disk raw speed= 40MB/s seek time = 8ms
> MO/ZIP raw speed= 3MB/s seek time = 25ms
>
> One seek of HD costs about 320KB, while on a slow drive it's
> only 75KB.

Hmmm, but I would imagine that most hard disks have much larger caches
than are popular on removable cartridge drives...

John.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.064 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site