Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:56:54 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is there any technical reason why we need 4 different schedulers at
> all?
> 

there is at least one technical reason to need more than one: certain
types of storage (both big EMC boxes as well as solid state disks)
don't behave like disks and have no seek penalty; any cpu time spent on
avoiding seeks is wasted on those, so for these devices one really
wants to use a different IO scheduler, one which is much lighter weight
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
    • From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.22 (gentoo + grsec) kernel BUG at mm/mlock.c:205!
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/9]: introduce radix_tree_gang_lookup_range
• Previous by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
• Next by thread: [RFC] [PATCH] 32-bit pointers in x86-64
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]