Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B702E05.1000708@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Kevin Grittner wrote: > I'll keep this in mind as something to try if we have problem > performance in line with what that page describes, though.... > That's basically what I've been trying to make clear all along: people should keep an open mind, watch what happens, and not make any assumptions. There's no clear cut preference for one scheduler or the other in all situations. I've seen CFQ do much better, you and Albe report situations where the opposite is true. I was just happy to see another report of someone running into the same sort of issue I've been seeing, because I didn't have very much data to offer about why the standard advice of "always use deadline for a database app" might not apply to everyone. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: