![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > Pedro Larroy wrote: > > Hi > > > > I've been trying CFQ ioscheduler in my software raid5 with nice results, > > I've observed that a latency pattern still exists, just as in the > > anticipatory ioscheduler, but those spikes are now much lower (from > > 6ms with AS to 2ms with CFQ as seen in the bottom of > > http://pedro.larroy.com/devel/iolat/analisys/), > > plus apps seems to get a fair amount of io so they don't get starved. > > > > Seems a good choice for io loaded boxes. Thanks Jens Axboe. > > > > Although AS isn't at its best when behind raid devices (it should > probably be in front of them), you could be seeing some problem > with the raid code. > > I'd be interested to see what the graph looks like with elevator=noop This isn't a very surprising result, is it? AS throws away latency to gain throughput. Pedro is measuring latency... - 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 14:02 [W:0.456 / U:0.070 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||