lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Benefits from computing physical IDE disk geometry?
Nick Piggin wrote:


> OK right. As far as I can see, the algorithm in the RAID1 code
> is used to select the best drive to read from? If that is the
> case then I don't think it could make better decisions given
> more knowledge.


How about if it just asks the elevator whether or not a given read
is a good fit with its current workload? I saw in 2.5 where the balance
code is looking at the number of pending requests and if it's zero then
it sends it to that device. Somehow I think something better than
that could be done, anyway.


> It seems to me that a better way to layer it would be to have
> the complex (ie deadline/AS/CFQ/etc) scheduler handling all
> requests into the raid block device, then having a raid
> scheduler distributing to the disks, and having the disks
> run no scheduler (fifo).


That only works if RAID1 is working at the physical disk level (which
it should be AFAIC but people want flexibility to mirror partitions.)


> In practice the current scheme probably works OK, though I
> wouldn't know due to lack of resources here :P


I've been playing with the 2.4 read balance code and have some
improvements, but real gains need a new approach.

(cc'd to linux-raid)

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.022 / U:2.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site