From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Moyer Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: Change default IO scheduler to deadline except SATA
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:56:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F843C17.5050004@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120410133708.GE21801@redhat.com>
On 2012-04-10 15:37, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if CFQ as default scheduler is still the right choice. CFQ
> generally works well on slow rotational media (SATA?). But often
> underperforms on faster storage (storage arrays, PCIE SSDs, virtualized
> disk in linux guests etc). People often put logic in user space to tune their
> systems and change IO scheduler to deadline to get better performance on
> faster storage.
>
> Though there is not one good answer for all kind of storage and for all
> kind of workloads, I am wondering if we can provide a better default and
> that is change default IO scheduler to "deadline" except SATA.
>
> One can argue that some SAS disks can be slow too and benefit from CFQ. Yes,
> but default IO scheduler choice is not perfect anyway. It just tries to
> cater to a wide variety of use cases out of the box.
>
> So I am throwing this patch out see if it flies. Personally, I think it
> might turn out to be a more reasonable default.
I think it'd be a lot more sane to just use CFQ on rotational single
devices, and default to deadline on raid or non-rotational devices. This
still isn't perfect, since less worthy SSDs still benefit from the
read/write separation, and some multi device configs will be faster as
well. But it's better.
The below patch is not a good idea. There's no clear distinction between
on what CFQ is now the default.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-10 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-10 13:37 [RFC PATCH] block: Change default IO scheduler to deadline except SATA Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 13:56 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2012-04-10 14:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 15:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 16:13 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 17:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 17:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 18:36 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-11 16:25 ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-04-10 18:41 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 18:53 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 18:56 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 19:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 19:19 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 19:43 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 19:55 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 20:12 ` Mike Snitzer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-10 17:44 Xose Vazquez Perez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F843C17.5050004@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.