3 ms·
Linux I/O Scheduler Comparison On The Linux 3.4 Desktop
- conorh 14y agoThis may be a great article, but the effort of parsing through the number of ads and highlighted words on the page made me give up trying to read it after the first two paragraphs. Not to hijack this posting, but can this amount of advertising really work for a content site? It seems like it would drive away most readers.
- Symmetry 14y agoPhoronix is one of the main reasons I run ScriptNo.
- MBCook 14y agoUnfortunately, this seems to be a standard Phoronix article. They picked an interesting topic and ran some benchmarks. In some cases the older CFQ scheduler is much slower than the NOP scheduler. In others, the Deadline scheduler pulls way ahead. The analysis in the article is essentially the paragraph I wrote above. No discussion of why one scheduler may be performing so much better/worse in one case. In fact, there is only a single sentence description of each scheduler.
- hello_asdf 14y agoWhere does BFQ fit into this? I've been using it as my I/O scheduler and I've noticed significant lag when I'm transferring large amounts of data between drives. Any thoughts on this? I've been thinking of switching back, but would love some thoughts on it's performance capabilities.