linux-kernel - CFQ I/O scheduler better than AS?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1285152908.10774.306.camel@albahaca.inf.um.es>
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:55:08 +0200
From:	Juan PC <piernas@...ec.um.es>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: CFQ I/O scheduler better than AS?

Hi:

I am sure that, for most people, the clear answer is "yes" (after all,
CFQ is the default I/O scheduler in Linux), but we are having serious
difficulties to find a benchmark which shows that CFQ is undoubtedly
better than AS.

We use several benchmarks and, in all of them, either AS is clearly
better than CFQ, or their performances are very similar.

Therefore, the question is, does such a benchmark exist?

Regards,

	Juan

--
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/