On 04/09/2007 03:27 PM, Andreas Mohr wrote:
And I really don't see much difference whatsoever to the I/O scheduler
area: some people want predictable latency, while others want maximum
throughput or fastest operation for seek-less flash devices (noop).
Hardware varies similarly greatly has well:
Some people have huge disk arrays or NAS, others have a single flash disk.
Some people have a decaying UP machine, others have huge SMP farms.
I do agree, and yes, I/O scheduling seems to not have suffered from the
choice although I must say I'm not sure how much use each I/O scheduler
individualy sees.
If one CPU scheduler can be good enough then it would better to just
have that one, but well, yes, maybe it can't. I certainly believe any
one scheduler can't avoid breaking down onder some condition. Demand is
just too varied.
I find it interesting that you see SD as a server scheduler and I guess
deterministic behaviour does point in that direction somewhat. I would
be enabling it on the desktop though, which probably is _some_ argument
on having multiple schedulers.
Rene.
-
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]
