[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CSCAN vs CFQ I/O scheduler benchmark results

(please don't top post)

On Sun, Jun 11 2006, Vishal Patil wrote:
> Jan
> I ran the performance benchmark on an IBM machine with the following
> harddrive attached to it.
> cat /proc/ide/hda/model
> ST340014A

Ok, so plain IDE.

> 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.

Extremely unlikely. The sort overhead is completely noise in a test such
as yours, an O(n^2) would likely run just as fast.

Jens Axboe

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-12 08:43    [W:0.108 / U:12.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site