Try benchmarking Anticipatory or Deadline against Noop, preferably
with your actual workload. Noop is probably what you want, since
there is not much use in avoiding large "seeks". It could be though
that request merging, which the non-noop schedulers all perform, willl
cause Noop to lose. I haven't tried any I/O scheduler benchmarks with
flash, but perhaps we need a simple "merge only" scheduler for this
sort of thing.
Let me know what the results are.
NATE
On 7/28/05, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I have an embedded system which has two read-only flash devices (one a
> PIO ATA flash disk, and one MDMA capable flash)
>
> As I'm doing no writing in this system and most of my reads are sequential
> (streaming movies or images) would my choice of io scheduler be very
> important?
>
> Regards,
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Airlie, Software Engineer
> http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie
> Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |