lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 12 Feb 2004 10:15:23 GMT
FromJohn Bradford <>
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 13:00    [from the cache]
©2003-2008