Re: Ten percent test

[Rene Herman]

On 04/09/2007 03:27 PM, Andreas Mohr wrote:

> And I really don't see much difference whatsoever to the I/O scheduler
> area: some people want predictable latency, while others want maximum
> throughput or fastest operation for seek-less flash devices (noop).
> Hardware varies similarly greatly has well:
> Some people have huge disk arrays or NAS, others have a single flash disk.
> Some people have a decaying UP machine, others have huge SMP farms.

I do agree, and yes, I/O scheduling seems to not have suffered from the 
choice although I must say I'm not sure how much use each I/O scheduler 
individualy sees.

If one CPU scheduler can be good enough then it would better to just 
have that one, but well, yes, maybe it can't. I certainly believe any 
one scheduler can't avoid breaking down onder some condition. Demand is 
just too varied.

I find it interesting that you see SD as a server scheduler and I guess 
deterministic behaviour does point in that direction somewhat. I would 
be enabling it on the desktop though, which probably is _some_ argument 
on having multiple schedulers.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/