On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 07:04:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mark H. Wood <mwood@IUPUI.Edu>
> To: unlisted-recipients: ;
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: disk head scheduling
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Yasushi Saito wrote:
> > > What I tried to implement was two-way elevator seeking (SCAN). In my
> > > tiny benchmark that let many threads write on random files, SCAN
> > > showed a throughput improvement of anywhere between 0 to 20%. But I
> > > also noticed benefits in the original algorithm (it's fairer), so I
> > > don't know if my change makes sense.
> >
> > the bigger problem is that dumber devices will just execute non-forwards
> > ordered requests. Most modern harddisks will either cache a full track, or
> > will reorder the request per-track anyway, but eg. a floppy disk or a
> > CD-ROM will execute the requests as given, and the 'downwards' queue will
> > perform badly. Would you mind doing the seek benchmark on your CDROM too,
> > just to test this theory?
>
> Well of course a 2-way elevator should sort by *ascending* sector within
> descending track. I take it this is difficult?
>
> --
Many (most? all new?) IDE drives lie to you about the real
heads/sectors of the drive so you do not have the ability to do this
accuratly.
David Lang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNvKaXT7msCGEppcbAQGjlggAyGYHTy2OKAxxpDKnhHP9vYNVLRVAVRGN
Muk0EAyb5eEn6FGYHNl666CHUJ/VkPXfDdq48+LNlFZn3jcv0/ogArzG+ovz+aXM
7IZ1LVOevOSKRk12IowvfMSzO0pPvaOBPDH6v5KyxBQoGBJnftwVLM4K+ElhGkby
7BPQ9dls5++VitkQlRkssuULVvW+Gdl1oTKD16TuXJlhXm4GAX3K/HdzqfUZNQ71
UiH46d9DfZjbvy0Ge1rm3hRoME7zs+SkPn+sWP/VVRAAfliRyEsqvHQGTz8cLIQc
gDY/QkmxVSuASw+J9Gs/t63BRrfQe0VH/A3Tb5uijNqI5I8suNIhQQ==
=7rYX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/