On 03/01/2014 15:13, William Kenworthy wrote: > On 03/01/14 15:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 03/01/2014 09:25, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >>> Am 03.01.2014 07:52, schrieb Alan McKinnon: >>>> On 03/01/2014 00:46, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >>>>> BFQ only for the SSDs ? >>>> >>>> Yes. The scheduler knows how to deal with SSDs while keeping everything >>>> responsive even under load. >>>> >>>> BFQ seems a good fit for your workcase - desktop/laptop. For those, >>>> interactive performance is the most important thing. >>> >>> So you set BFQ for the SSDs and CFQ for the hdds ? I have both in my >>> desktop. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> BFQ for both is the recommendation. >> >> But do try it both ways to see how it performs and compare. >> > > hmm, is BFQ good for VM's too? I am currently using noops (storage is > ceph) and was going to experiment but have not had the time yet.
I have no idea, but I'd like to find out. Instinct tells me one of the host or guest should be NOOP so that the other one can get on with scheduling without conflict. But I also reckon the question is waaaay more complex than that. I'd like to see the results of any benchmarks you do with BFQ on VMs -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
