linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:10:16 +0200
From:	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>
To:	Juan PC <piernas@...ec.um.es>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFQ I/O scheduler better than AS?

On Miércoles, 22 de Septiembre de 2010 12:55:08 Juan PC escribió:
> 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.

The AS io scheduler was removed in 2.6.33 (7 months ago, in commit 
492af6350a5ccf087e4964104a276ed358811458), so you must be running
benchmarks in old kernels. The CFQ scheduler used in recent kernels
should have good performance (if it doesn't, you probably should
write a bug report ccing jens.axboe@...cle.com)

Saludos ;)
--
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/