Messages in this thread | | | From | "Michael T. Babcock" <> | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2 | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:22:16 -0400 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |