Messages in this thread | | | From | Alberto Gonzalez <> | Subject | Re: Question about fair schedulers | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:39:20 +0200 |
| |
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote: > > P.S: As a second thought, a fair scheduler could behave really good > > in other scenarios, like a server running a busy forum on apache > > +mysql+php. Besides, this is a more real world scenario (and easier > > to benchmark). Why aren't people testing these schedulers under > > this kind of load? > > That kind of load is boring precisely because it doesn't care about > interactivity. CFS/SD aren't a whole lot different from mainline- > without-interactivity in that respect, precisely because the latency > of the network is between ten and a hundred times more than the > latency of the scheduler. The only time it really matters is with > desktops where users care about smoothness.
Well, I've just seen some benchmarks of this kind with CFS and it does make a difference. The scalability problem with MySQL seems to get solved with this scheduler. However, the peak throughput is quite lower than with the same kernel/glibc version and mainline scheduler.
http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/
Anyway, this kind of testing seems to be useful. Linux is too widely deployed in servers to ignore the behavior of a CPU scheduler in that scenario.
Cheers, Alberto. - 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/
| |