[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <652016d30612182222h7fde4ea5jbc0927c8ebeae76a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:07:14 +0545
From: "Manish Regmi" <regmi.manish@...il.com>
To: "Erik Mouw" <mouw@...linux.org>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Cc: kernelnewbies@...linux.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux disk performance.
On 12/18/06, Erik Mouw <mouw@...linux.org> wrote:
<...snip...>
> >
> > But isn't O_DIRECT supposed to bypass buffering in Kernel?
>
> It is.
>
> > Doesn't it directly write to disk?
>
> Yes, but it still uses an IO scheduler.
>
Ok. but i also tried with noop to turnoff disk scheduling effects.
There was still timing differences. Usually i get 3100 microseconds
but upto 20000 microseconds at certain intervals. I am just using
gettimeofday between two writes to read the timing.
> In your first message you mentioned you were using an ancient 2.6.10
> kernel. That kernel uses the anticipatory IO scheduler. Update to the
> latest stable kernel (2.6.19.1 at time of writing) and it will default
> to the CFQ scheduler which has a smoother writeout, plus you can give
> your process a different IO scheduling class and level (see
> Documentation/block/ioprio.txt).
Thanks... i will try with CFQ.
Nick Piggin:
> but
> they look like they might be a (HZ quantised) delay coming from
> block layer plugging.
Sorry i didnĀ“t understand what you mean.
To minimise scheduling effects i tried giving it maximum priority.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
regards
Manish Regmi
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX without a C Compiler is like eating Spaghetti with your mouth
sewn shut. It just doesn't make sense.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists