Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: walt <w41ter@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Best way to improve interactivity with heavy disk activity?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:40:57
Message-Id: icu44p$f6j$1@dough.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Best way to improve interactivity with heavy disk activity? by App Deb
1 On 11/27/2010 11:17 PM, App Deb wrote:
2 > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@×××××.de> wrote:
3 >> On 11/28/2010 01:03 AM, Stroller wrote:
4 >>>
5 >>> On 27/11/2010, at 10:22pm, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
6 >>>>
7 >>>> The ck patch set does not support group scheduling anyway;
8 >>>
9 >>> Now I'm a little more confused. Does `ionice` need the CFQ scheduler?
10 >>
11 >> Nope. I/O scheduling priorities are part of the I/O scheduler, not the CPU
12 >> scheduler.
13 >
14 > CFQ is the official I/O scheduler.
15 >
16 > ionice only works with CFQ.
17
18 I'm confused about which of all these various mechanisms apply to single-cpu
19 machines. AFAICT Con's BFS (e.g.) is really a CPU scheduler and doesn't affect
20 single-cpu machines very much. What about CFQ and group scheduling? Others?
21
22 Thanks for any clues.

Replies