| 1 |
On 03/01/2014 15:13, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/01/14 15:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/01/2014 09:25, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Am 03.01.2014 07:52, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 03/01/2014 00:46, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> BFQ only for the SSDs ? |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Yes. The scheduler knows how to deal with SSDs while keeping everything |
| 9 |
>>>> responsive even under load. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> BFQ seems a good fit for your workcase - desktop/laptop. For those, |
| 12 |
>>>> interactive performance is the most important thing. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> So you set BFQ for the SSDs and CFQ for the hdds ? I have both in my |
| 15 |
>>> desktop. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> BFQ for both is the recommendation. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> But do try it both ways to see how it performs and compare. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> hmm, is BFQ good for VM's too? I am currently using noops (storage is |
| 27 |
> ceph) and was going to experiment but have not had the time yet. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I have no idea, but I'd like to find out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Instinct tells me one of the host or guest should be NOOP so that the |
| 33 |
other one can get on with scheduling without conflict. But I also reckon |
| 34 |
the question is waaaay more complex than that. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'd like to see the results of any benchmarks you do with BFQ on VMs |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 41 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives