| 1 |
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, Joshua Doll wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Jason Carson wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> I was reading this article (http://lwn.net/Articles/114770/) which |
| 7 |
>>> says... |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> AS (Anticipatory Scheduler) still seems to be better for desktop systems |
| 10 |
>>> and IDE disks |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> ... I have a server, not a desktop system but am using an IDE disk so |
| 13 |
>>> which scheduler is better for a server. Should I stay with anticipatory |
| 14 |
>>> because I am using an IDE disk or switch to something else because my |
| 15 |
>>> system is a server? |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> That article is before the work began on the CFS/CFQ scheduler. There |
| 18 |
>> has been a lot of improvements made to the CFQ scheduler in the past year. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> http://kerneltrap.org/node/8059 |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> CFS and CFQ have NOTHING IN COMMON. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> CFS is a TASK scheduler. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> CFQ is a BLOCK IO scheduler. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Two completly different fields. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Please stop confusing this stuff, ok? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> deadline/cfq/as is block IO stuff |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> cfs is about 'what app runs next' stuff. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
--Joshua Doll |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives