From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750797AbWFKS7B (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:59:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750811AbWFKS7B (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:59:01 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:18798 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750797AbWFKS7A (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:59:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:58:55 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Vishal Patil Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: CSCAN vs CFQ I/O scheduler benchmark results Message-ID: <20060611185854.GF13556@suse.de> References: <4745278c0606091230g1cff8514vc6ad154acb62e341@mail.gmail.com> <4745278c0606091915n3ed7563do505664c4f8070f81@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4745278c0606091915n3ed7563do505664c4f8070f81@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09 2006, Vishal Patil wrote: > The machine configuation is as follows > CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz > Memory: 1027500 KB (1 GB) > Filesystem: ext3 > Kernel: 2.6.16.2 You don't mention the storage used, which is quite relevant. If you have the time, please rerun with 2.6.17-rc6-gitX latest. Although I'm not sure why you think CSCAN is a good scheduling algorithm, in general it may be fine but there are trivial non-root 'dos' attacks. Any of the non-noop Linux io schedulers is a better choice imo. -- Jens Axboe