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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).