From: Dave Olien <dmo@osdl.org>
To: Diego Calleja <grundig@teleline.es>
Cc: Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:00:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040212020019.GA22344@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040211221806.106eed62.grundig@teleline.es>
2.4 does not have deadline scheduler. But the 2.6 deadline scheduler
is more similar to 2.4's scheduler than is the anticipatory scheduler.
Re-try 2.6 with deadline scheduler will remove some of the additional
scheduler policies that are present in the anticipatory scheduler.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 10:18:06PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:02:39 +0800 Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org> escribió:
>
>
> > 2.4 has a deadline scheduler. 2.6 default is anticipatory.
>
> I though the 2.4 io scheduler wasn't "deadline" base, I think the first
> "deadline" io scheduler was the one merged ~2.5.39
>
> -
> 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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-12 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien [this message]
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
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=20040212020019.GA22344@osdl.org \
--to=dmo@osdl.org \
--cc=grundig@teleline.es \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhf@linuxmail.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox