On Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007, Mick wrote: > On Thursday 13 December 2007, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > > On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, Jason Carson wrote: > > > I was reading this article (http://lwn.net/Articles/114770/) which > > > says... > > > > > > AS (Anticipatory Scheduler) still seems to be better for desktop > > > systems and IDE disks > > > > > > ... I have a server, not a desktop system but am using an IDE disk so > > > which scheduler is better for a server. Should I stay with anticipatory > > > because I am using an IDE disk or switch to something else because my > > > system is a server? > > > > this article is acient. > > > > Nowadays CFQ and deadline are the best choices. CFQ is the best choice > > for most desktops and most servers and for some servers and some selected > > desktops deadline is the best choice. > > > > Why not built all three and switch between them with the apropriate > > kernel command line. That way you can easily test which one is the best > > for you. > > How would you go about testing each?
as Daniel Pielmeier wrote here: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /usr/src/linux/Documentation/block/switching-sched.txt just try the different schedulers while doing your daily stuff and the one that works best, is the one you'll use in the future. For me CFQ worked best. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
