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 |