On Saturday 27 May 2006 10:00, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 27 May 2006 09:54, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> > > > These are nice-looking numbers, but one wonders. If optimising
> > > > readahead makes this much difference to postgresql performance then
> > > > postgresql should be doing the readahead itself, rather than relying
> > > > upon the kernel's ability to guess what the application will be doing
> > > > in the future. Because surely the database can do a better job of
> > > > that than the kernel.
> > >
> > > With that argument we should remove all readahead from the kernel?
> > > Because it's already trying to guess what the application will do.
> > > I suspect it's better to have good readahead code in the kernel
> > > than in a zillion application.
> >
> > Maybe a pluggable read-ahead system could be implemented.
>
> Pluggable anything is unpopular with Linus and other maintainers. See
> pluggable cpu scheduler and pluggable page replacement policy (vm)
> patchsets.
Sorry I should have been clearer. The belief is that certain infrastructure
components do not benefit from a pluggable framework, and readeahead probably
comes under that description. It's not like Linus was implying we should only
have one filesystem for example, since filesystems are afterall pluggable
features.
--
-ck
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
