| 1 |
On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, Joshua Doll wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Carson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I was reading this article (http://lwn.net/Articles/114770/) which |
| 4 |
> > says... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > AS (Anticipatory Scheduler) still seems to be better for desktop systems |
| 7 |
> > and IDE disks |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > ... I have a server, not a desktop system but am using an IDE disk so |
| 10 |
> > which scheduler is better for a server. Should I stay with anticipatory |
| 11 |
> > because I am using an IDE disk or switch to something else because my |
| 12 |
> > system is a server? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That article is before the work began on the CFS/CFQ scheduler. There |
| 15 |
> has been a lot of improvements made to the CFQ scheduler in the past year. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/8059 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
CFS and CFQ have NOTHING IN COMMON. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
CFS is a TASK scheduler. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
CFQ is a BLOCK IO scheduler. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Two completly different fields. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Please stop confusing this stuff, ok? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
deadline/cfq/as is block IO stuff |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
cfs is about 'what app runs next' stuff. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives