| 1 |
On 03/01/14 15:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/01/2014 09:25, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 03.01.2014 07:52, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 4 |
>>> On 03/01/2014 00:46, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> BFQ only for the SSDs ? |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Yes. The scheduler knows how to deal with SSDs while keeping everything |
| 8 |
>>> responsive even under load. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> BFQ seems a good fit for your workcase - desktop/laptop. For those, |
| 11 |
>>> interactive performance is the most important thing. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> So you set BFQ for the SSDs and CFQ for the hdds ? I have both in my |
| 14 |
>> desktop. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> BFQ for both is the recommendation. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> But do try it both ways to see how it performs and compare. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
hmm, is BFQ good for VM's too? I am currently using noops (storage is |
| 26 |
ceph) and was going to experiment but have not had the time yet. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
BillK |
Archives