[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>
- To: Jens Axboe <jens axboe oracle com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, jmarchan redhat com, fernando oss ntt co jp, Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr 13a datenparkplatz de>, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, riel redhat com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, containers lists linux-foundation org, Mike Galbraith <efault gmx de>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, akpm linux-foundation org, righi andrea gmail com, torvalds linux-foundation org
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:24:09 +0200
* Jens Axboe <jens axboe oracle com> wrote:
> It's not hard to make the latency good, the hard bit is making sure we
> also perform well for all other scenarios.
Looking at the numbers from Mike:
| dd competing against perf stat -- konsole -e exec timings, 5 back to
| back runs
| Avg
| before 9.15 14.51 9.39 15.06 9.90 11.6
| after [+patch] 1.76 1.54 1.93 1.88 1.56 1.7
_PLEASE_ make read latencies this good - the numbers are _vastly_
better. We'll worry about the 'other' things _after_ we've reached good
latencies.
I thought this principle was a well established basic rule of Linux IO
scheduling. Why do we have to have a 'latency vs. bandwidth' discussion
again and again? I thought latency won hands down.
Ingo
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]