Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:41:36 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 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 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/
| |