Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:52:22 -0700 | From | Nate Diller <> | Subject | Re: io scheduler silly question perhaps.. |
| |
Try benchmarking Anticipatory or Deadline against Noop, preferably with your actual workload. Noop is probably what you want, since there is not much use in avoiding large "seeks". It could be though that request merging, which the non-noop schedulers all perform, willl cause Noop to lose. I haven't tried any I/O scheduler benchmarks with flash, but perhaps we need a simple "merge only" scheduler for this sort of thing.
Let me know what the results are.
NATE
On 7/28/05, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> wrote: > > I have an embedded system which has two read-only flash devices (one a > PIO ATA flash disk, and one MDMA capable flash) > > As I'm doing no writing in this system and most of my reads are sequential > (streaming movies or images) would my choice of io scheduler be very > important? > > Regards, > Dave. > > -- > David Airlie, Software Engineer > http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie > Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG > > - > 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/ > - 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/
| |