Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-15 Thread Erik Tews
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote: > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any > thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a > server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes > on disk wait, 3 of th

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-02 Thread Andrey Savochkin
Hello, On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote: > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any > thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a > server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes > on disk wait,

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread Marc Lehmann
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:58:55PM -0700, LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Specifically, I'm talking about 'nice'd "down" processes -- things Well, it is difficult to implement (network bandwidht limiting or i/o latency for example), but asking for it once a year might make it reality.

RE: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread LA Walsh
needed. -l > -Original Message- > From: Alexander Viro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 1:52 PM > To: Rik van Riel > Cc: LA Walsh; lkml > Subject: Re: Disk priorities... > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > &

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread Alexander Viro
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > And if you mean reads... Good luck propagating the originator > > information. > > Isn't it the case that for most of the filesystem > reads the current process is the one that is the > originator of the request ? Not true for metadata (consider the

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote: > > > > > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever > > > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. > > > > Not currently, but it w

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread Alexander Viro
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote: > > > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever > > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. > > Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum > elevator sort

Re: Disk priorities...

2000-10-01 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote: > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum elevator sorting latency according to the niceness of the process. I h