Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Matthew <jackdachef@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 9:51 am

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
<snip>

I am afraid i cannot exactly tell you..

But i do have some additional information for you.

I have a server running with identical disk to mine, however, with an
older intel ahci controller..

This one gets 80mb/s with cfq, and 100mb/s with
anticipatory/deadline/noop with hdparm..

This server is running debian stable with a .18 kernel. I am sad to say
however, that i will be unable to do any testing on this box, since it
is a production server, and i can not shut it down.

haltek:~/blktrace# ./blktrace  /dev/sda
BLKTRACESETUP: Inappropriate ioctl for device
Failed to start trace on /dev/sda

However, on the box where you saw the previous numbers, i sure will be
able to provide you with the data you need.

i expect to get around to doing this this afternoon, or tonight at
~02:00
(im GMT+1).



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory..., Kasper Sandberg, (Tue May 13, 9:51 am)