On Tue, Apr 12 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM
> > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
> > > On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
> > > > > No such promise
On Tue, Apr 12 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
No such promise was ever made,
Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM
> Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
> > On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
> > > > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
> > >
Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
nothing'. It
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
> On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
> > > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
> > > nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
> > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
> > nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics
> > of block layer commands just for the hell of it.
>
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics
of block layer commands just for the hell of it.
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> >
> >>The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
> >>workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
> >>sending it down, the I/O presented to
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
merge-able anymore. Since I/O are
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
> No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
> nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics
> of block layer commands just for the hell of it.
Acknowledged and understood, will try your patch
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
> > workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
> > sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
> workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
> sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
> merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
> workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
> sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
> merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also random,
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also random,
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM
No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically
nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics
of block layer commands just for the hell of it.
Acknowledged and understood, will try your patch
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not
merge-able anymore. Since I/O are
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing
workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before
sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator
20 matches
Mail list logo