[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 08:04:37PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > i'd say 'latency' describes it even better. 'interactivity' as a term is
> > a bit overladen.
> I'm not too crazy about it either. How about just using 'desktop' since
> this is obviously what we are really targetting? 'latency' isn't fully
> descriptive either, since it may not necessarily provide the best single
> IO latency (noop would).

As Linus has already pointed out, it's not necessarily "desktop"
versus "server". There will be certain high frequency transaction
database workloads (for example) that will very much care about
latency. I think "low_latency" may be the best term to use.

- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-02 20:39    [W:0.165 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site