[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Big nack on this patch. Ted, this is EXACTLY where I told you we saw big
> write regressions (sqlite performance drops by a factor of 4-5). Do a
> git log on fs/buffer.c and see the original patch (which does what your
> patch does) and the later revert. No idea why you are now suggestion
> making that exact change?!
Jens, if I can re-create the 'fsync' times (I haven't yet), then the
default scheduler _will_ be switched to AS.
> Low latency is nice, but not at the cost of 4-5x throughput for real
> world cases.
I'm sorry, but that fsync thing _is_ a real-world case, and it's the one
that a hell of a lot more people care about than some idiotic sqlite
throughput issue.
You have a test-case now. Consider it a priority, or consider CFQ to be a
"for crazy servers that only care about throughput".
Quite frankly, the fact that I can see _seconds_ of latencies with a
really good SSD is not acceptable. The fact that it is by design is even
less so.
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists