From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Dave Olien <dmo@osdl.org>
Cc: Diego Calleja <grundig@teleline.es>,
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040212022314.GS4478@dualathlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040212020019.GA22344@osdl.org>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 06:00:19PM -0800, Dave Olien wrote:
>
> 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.
the main difference is that 2.4 isn't in function of time, it's in
function of requests, no matter how long it takes to write a request, so
it's potentially optimizing slow devices when you don't care about
latency (deadline can be tuned for each dev via
/sys/block/*/queue/iosched/).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-12 2:23 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
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
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=20040212022314.GS4478@dualathlon.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=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