As listed, the choices are noop, anticipatory, deadline, and cfq.
Kernel gurus look away as I try to explain this, lest you risk dying a bit
(or a lot) on the inside
The default is CFQ which tries to separate IO requests by priority classes,
and then provides fair timeslices to each process
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:03:19AM +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
Faster code? No, GCC doesn't rewrite code. Streamline the compiled
binary to make efficient use of system calls? Yes. Different GCC
versions can have dramatic effects
I wonder how this discussion is able to drift so much away from the
actual subject on both ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-devel-discuss. Many
people do not want to believe results or just point out one or two of
them are meaningless (like NVIDIA graphics performance with closed
drivers is not that
Olá Scott e a todos.
On Thursday 06 November 2008 22:44:17 Scott James Remnant wrote:
Also you can just fiddle on a per-disk basis, e.g.:
echo -n deadline /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
What other options are there, and in which cases can/should them be used?
Currenctly this is what I hae
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant wrote on 06/11/08 22:44:
...
I've always thought it would be interesting to be able to influence the
scheduler on a per process basis - and do that from the Window Manager.
ie. deliberately give the user's foreground process the
Markus Hitter wrote:
Am 06.11.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Dan Colish:
They're using very different gcc versions between the os's.
Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
Quite a few GCC optimisations are for specific CPUs. 32bit ubuntu uses very
conservative options
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant wrote on 06/11/08 22:44:
...
I've always thought it would be interesting to be able to influence the
scheduler on a per process basis - and do that from the Window Manager.
ie. deliberately give
Hi,
According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop
2008/11/6 mr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
I can confirm that this is
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote:
Hi,
According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
I can
Whoops, I thought you were talking about the recent article about -intel
performance on x45 chips. But I see you're actually talking about an
earlier article about Ubuntu performance in general:
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13022
Note that in that article they looked only at the
I'm not convined those Phoronix test are really that accurate, especially
after reading this one:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_macosxnum=1
It looks like they are not really comparing apples to apples, especially
when it comes to java benchmarking. They're using very
Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end.
I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be
faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our
users well.
The good news always comes from the users directly who never complain
about slowness. When
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 14:38 -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end.
I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be
faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our
users well.
Yes, the response on /. to
Quoting Bryce Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote:
Hi,
According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
this can be seen as up to 50%
faster than Vista isn't hard, we want it to be faster than XP because
remember, that's what most people are running. Why would they switch to
Ubuntu if it's going to make their machine slower?
I think performance is a very relative term. Slow for games can be great for
a database. I am a lot
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 20:41 +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
The disk IO performance decrease from Gutsy to Hardy is anything but
anecdotal.
This (
http://groups.google.com/group/zumastor/browse_thread/thread/7e413960ddc22811#
) bug report in the Zumastor project has some (quite
Am 06.11.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Dan Colish:
They're using very different gcc versions between the os's.
Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
MarKus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss
18 matches
Mail list logo
