On Wed, Oct 18 2006, Alan Cox wrote: > Bandwidth is completely silly in this context, iops/sec is merely > hopeless 8) Both need the disk to play nicely, if you get into error handling or correction, you get screwed. Bandwidth by itself is meaningless, you need latency as well to make sense of it. -- Jens Axboe - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- References:
- Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: "Phetteplace, Thad \(GE Healthcare, consultant\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- Prev by Date: Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- Next by Date: Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- Previous by thread: Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- Next by thread: Re: Bandwidth Allocations under CFQ I/O Scheduler
- Index(es):
 |