[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6
- From: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng cn fujitsu com>
- To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, snitzer redhat com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, jens axboe oracle com, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, fernando oss ntt co jp, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, akpm linux-foundation org, jbaron redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, s-uchida ap jp nec com, righi andrea gmail com, containers lists linux-foundation org
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:36:31 +0800
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:10:34AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here are some fio test results for IO Controller V6 built and not built.
>> Iozone test results are also attached.
>>
>
> Hi Gui,
>
> Thanks a lot for some performance numbers. It seems to be a mixed chart.
> Performance gains at some places and loss at others. I am curious about
> that -7.0% for normal writes. Not sure what can contribute to that.
>
> What was the value of "fairness" parameter when you ran those tests? Can you
> please set fairness = 0 and re-run the tests (if you have already not done so).
>
> By default fairness is set to 1 in V6. With fairness = 0, we should be very
> close to existing CFQ behavior. If not, then we need to dive deeper and
> see why variations are happening.
Hi Vivek,
I tested with default fairness value, i'll re-test it when fairness is set to 0.
>
> Is it also possible to run the same tests with V7.
Sure.
--
Regards
Gui Jianfeng
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]