> BFS is a CPU scheduler, CFQ, Deadline, No-Op, and Anticipatory are all I/O
> schedulers...
Sorry, I've realized that when I googled for benchmarks and it was
compiled against the CFS scheduler. :-)
--
Szénási István
2010/1/5 Szénási István
> And what about the BFS scheduler? I know, that it isn't in the
> mainline kernel, bit I've heard a lot of good about that.
> If you send me the size and the number of the test files, I'll make an
> other benchmark with the CFQ, the Deadline and the BFS scheduler on a
> D
On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:39, Mick wrote:
What does experience show to be a best option for a desktop that has:
a) Single CPU?
b) Dual core?
c) Quad core?
On 5 Jan 2010, at 12:38, Szénási István wrote:
And what about the BFS scheduler? I know, that it isn't in the
mainline kernel, bit I've heard
And what about the BFS scheduler? I know, that it isn't in the
mainline kernel, bit I've heard a lot of good about that.
If you send me the size and the number of the test files, I'll make an
other benchmark with the CFQ, the Deadline and the BFS scheduler on a
Dual Core machine. :-)
--
Szénási I
2010/1/5 Alan McKinnon :
> On Tuesday 05 January 2010 10:15:00 Stroller wrote:
>> On 5 Jan 2010, at 06:21, Mick wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> Solved. The problem was CFQ I/O scheduler. It was several times slower
>> >> than the others, for whatever reason.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> > Hmmm ... reading at the help
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 10:15:00 Stroller wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2010, at 06:21, Mick wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Solved. The problem was CFQ I/O scheduler. It was several times slower
> >> than the others, for whatever reason.
> >> ...
> >
> > Hmmm ... reading at the help files I thought that CFQ was the
>
On 5 Jan 2010, at 06:21, Mick wrote:
>> ...
>> Solved. The problem was CFQ I/O scheduler. It was several times slower
>> than the others, for whatever reason.
>> ...
>
> Hmmm ... reading at the help files I thought that CFQ was the default/best
> option for a desktop. Is there such a thing as a
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 05:26:32 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul Hartman
>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got a Nokia N900 linux internet tablet/phone a few days ago, and
> > when I connect it in USB Mass Storage mode to a Windows Vista computer
> > I can write at 17MB/
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a Nokia N900 linux internet tablet/phone a few days ago, and
> when I connect it in USB Mass Storage mode to a Windows Vista computer
> I can write at 17MB/sec, but when I connect it to my Gentoo box my
> writes are really slow,
9 matches
Mail list logo
