[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080821115310.GP8318@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:53:10 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@...s-3g.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system)
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 04:04:18PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> One thing I just found out - my old *laptop* is 4-5x faster than the
> 10krpm scsi disk behind an old cciss raid controller. I'm wondering
> if the long delays in dispatch is caused by an interaction with CTQ
> but I can't change it on the cciss raid controllers. Are you using
> ctq/ncq on your machine? If so, can you reduce the depth to
> something less than 4 and see what difference that makes?
I don't think that's going to make a difference when using CFQ. I did
some tests that showed that CFQ would never issue more than one IO at a
time to a drive. This was using sixteen userspace threads, each doing a
4k direct I/O to the same location. When using noop, I would get 70k
IOPS and when using CFQ I'd get around 40k IOPS.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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