Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
От | Jeff |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E0A555ED-AADE-4DD1-9F57-31A73002CB05@torgo.978.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > Jeff wrote: >> I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers and at the time >> deadline or noop smashed cfq. Now, it is 100% possible since then >> that they've made vast improvements to cfq and or the VM to get >> better or similar performance. I recall a vintage of 2.6 where >> they severely messed up the VM. Glad I didn't upgrade to that one :) >> >> Here's the old post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-04/msg00155.php > > pgiosim doesn't really mix writes into there though, does it? The > mixed read/write situations are the ones where the scheduler stuff > gets messy. > It has the abillity to rewrite blocks randomly as well - but I honestly don't remember if I did that during my cfq/deadline test. I'd wager I didn't. Maybe I'll get some time to run some more tests on it in the next couple days > -- > Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support > greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com > -- Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com> http://www.stuarthamm.net/ http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: