On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 16:46 -0400, Phetteplace, Thad (GE Healthcare,
consultant) wrote:
> The I/O priority levels available under the CFQ scheduler are
> nice (no pun in intended), but I remember some talk back when
> they first went in that future versions might include bandwidth
> allocations in addition to the 'niceness' style. Is anyone out
> there working on that? If not, I'm willing to hack up a proof
> of concept... I just wan't to make sure I'm not reinventing
> the wheel.
Hi,
it's a nice idea in theory. However... since IO bandwidth for seeks is
about 1% to 3% of that of sequential IO (on disks at least), which
bandwidth do you want to allocate? "worst case" you need to use the
all-seeks bandwidth, but that's so far away from "best case" that it may
well not be relevant in practice. Yet there are real world cases where
for a period of time you approach worst case behavior ;(
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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]
