[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik van Riel" <>

> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > >Uhmmm, isn't the elevator about request /latency/ ?
> >
> > Yes, but definitely not absolute "time" latency.
> So what do you think about the idea Jeff Merkey
> presented? It seems to work well for Netware, so
> maybe we should try for Linux?

If I may ask a potentially stupid question, how can request latency be
anything but a factor of time? Latency is how /long/ you (or the computer)
/waits/ for something. That defines it as a function of time.

Just curious what the full comment being made is ...
... because I'm suspicious that the terms are being confused and there is
some discussion about reducing drive access latency within the context of
not moving the heads too much, etc. without the context of the user-space
application waiting for data.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:1.366 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site