Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:01:25 -0500 | From | Steven Pratt <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm3 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>>- The effects of tcq on AS are much less disastrous than I thought they >>> >>> >> > were. Do I have the wrong workload? Memory fails me. Or did we fix the >> > anticipatory scheduler? >> > >> > >> >> Yes, we did fix it ;) >> Quite a long time ago, so maybe you are thinking of something else >> (I haven't been able to work it out). >> >> > >Steve Pratt's ols2004 presentation made AS look pretty bad. However the >numbers in the proceedings >(http://www.finux.org/proceedings/LinuxSymposium2004_V2.pdf) are much less >stark. > >Steve, what's up with that? The slides which you talked to had some awful >numbers. Was it the same set of tests? > > I highlighted a few cases where AS went really wrong during the presentation, like on really large RAID 0 arrays, but in general (referring back to slides) AS trailed other schedulers by 5-10% on ext3, but had real trouble with XFS, losing by as much as %145 on 5disk raid5 system for a mix of workloads. Perhaps this is the piece you remember.
Steve - 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/
| |