Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:47:07 -0400 | From | "Vishal Patil" <> | Subject | Re: CSCAN vs CFQ I/O scheduler benchmark results |
| |
Jan
I ran the performance benchmark on an IBM machine with the following harddrive attached to it.
cat /proc/ide/hda/model ST340014A
Also note the CSCAN implementation is using rbtrees due which the time complexity of the different operations is O(log(n)) and not O(n) and that might be the reason that we are getting good values for specially in case of sequential writes and the random workloads.
I will try making measurements using 2.6.17-rc6-gitX until next weekend. Thanks for help and inputs folks.
- Vishal
On 6/11/06, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09 2006, Vishal Patil wrote: > > The machine configuation is as follows > > CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz > > Memory: 1027500 KB (1 GB) > > Filesystem: ext3 > > Kernel: 2.6.16.2 > > You don't mention the storage used, which is quite relevant. > > If you have the time, please rerun with 2.6.17-rc6-gitX latest. Although > I'm not sure why you think CSCAN is a good scheduling algorithm, in > general it may be fine but there are trivial non-root 'dos' attacks. Any > of the non-noop Linux io schedulers is a better choice imo. > > -- > Jens Axboe > >
-- Success is mainly about failing a lot. - 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/
| |