Re: io scheduler silly question perhaps..

[Nate Diller <nate.diller@gmail.com>]

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 <airlied@linux.ie> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/