linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2 0/8]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler

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:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:30:09 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
	jack@...e.cz, zhu.yanhai@...il.com, namhyung.kim@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v2 0/8]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:02:13PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> An IOPS based I/O scheduler
> 
> Flash based storage has some different characteristics against rotate disk.
> 1. no I/O seek.
> 2. read and write I/O cost usually is much different.
> 3. Time which a request takes depends on request size.
> 4. High throughput and IOPS, low latency.

Hi Shaohua,

Last time we agreed that you will try to extend CFQ iops mode to take care
of this case. I was wondering that if that idea is out of the window?

Also what's the real workload where this is going to benefit us. I had
struggled to run something which drove constantly deep queue depths to
get the fairness without idling.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/