From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carson Gaspar <carson@taltos.org>
Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] kvm, drbd, elevator,	rotational - quite an interesting
 co-operation
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:00:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4A5257E0.2040200@taltos.org>
References: <4A4D1099.8050709@msgid.tls.msk.ru>	<90eb1dc70907021314p140faa87he9c583cca1b391ea@mail.gmail.com> <4A51FC17.8020004@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: drbd-user@lists.linbit.com
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.taltos.org ([64.81.242.52]:41454 "EHLO gandalf.taltos.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753579AbZGFUXu (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:23:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4A51FC17.8020004@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Michael Tokarev wrote:

> To be fair, I can't construct an example when deeper queue may
> be bad (not counting bad NCQ implementations).

Increased latency for new requests. Larger queue depths improve throughput at 
the expense of latency.

-- 
Carson