Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: "Hemmann
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel schedulers
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:19:06
Message-Id: 200712140113.15838.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Kernel schedulers by Joshua Doll
1 On Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007, Joshua Doll wrote:
2 > Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
3 > > On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, Joshua Doll wrote:
4 > >> Jason Carson wrote:
5 > >>> I was reading this article (http://lwn.net/Articles/114770/) which
6 > >>> says...
7 > >>>
8 > >>> AS (Anticipatory Scheduler) still seems to be better for desktop
9 > >>> systems and IDE disks
10 > >>>
11 > >>> ... I have a server, not a desktop system but am using an IDE disk so
12 > >>> which scheduler is better for a server. Should I stay with anticipatory
13 > >>> because I am using an IDE disk or switch to something else because my
14 > >>> system is a server?
15 > >>
16 > >> That article is before the work began on the CFS/CFQ scheduler. There
17 > >> has been a lot of improvements made to the CFQ scheduler in the past
18 > >> year.
19 > >>
20 > >> http://kerneltrap.org/node/8059
21 > >
22 > > CFS and CFQ have NOTHING IN COMMON.
23 > >
24 > > CFS is a TASK scheduler.
25 > >
26 > > CFQ is a BLOCK IO scheduler.
27 > >
28 > > Two completly different fields.
29 > >
30 > > Please stop confusing this stuff, ok?
31 > >
32 > > deadline/cfq/as is block IO stuff
33 > >
34 > > cfs is about 'what app runs next' stuff.
35 >
36 > My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
37 >
38 > --Joshua Doll
39
40 sorry for sounding agressive. That was not my intent *sigh*
41
42 --
43 Conclusions
44 In a straight-up fight, the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Even
45 with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the
46 Federation like a bug. Accept it. -Michael Wong
47 --
48 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list