| 1 |
On Saturday 15 December 2007, forgottenwizard wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15:27 Thu 13 Dec , Jason Carson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Greetings, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Where in the kernel config (make menuconfig) do I find the choice for |
| 6 |
> > schedulers. The one I am currently using is "Anticipatory". What is the |
| 7 |
> > newest and latest scheduler for 2.6.23? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Regards, |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Jason Carson |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > -- |
| 14 |
> > gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Like someone else mentioned, you can switch the sched on the fly, and |
| 17 |
> quite easily. From what I have seen myself: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Anticipatory seems to be, at times, faster than deadline, but not by |
| 20 |
> much. It tries to predict what will be needed next, where as deadline |
| 21 |
> makes reads/writes based on which will be the fastest (recomended for |
| 22 |
> databases and such iirc). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> In my experiance, CFQ has always been the slowest. It gives everything |
| 25 |
> even time, and seems to cause alot more head movement than the other |
| 26 |
> two, which is a pain. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Best bet is to compile them all in, and switch them out to see what |
| 29 |
> works best. For me that seems to be deadline (btw, I am running a |
| 30 |
> desktop), but testing would be the best thing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Is testing a matter of how 'it feels' to use the desktop type-of-thing, or is |
| 33 |
it a matter of trying to start/run multiple apps against a stop-watch? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I have used anticipatory and CFQ on my laptop and I am not sure that I can |
| 36 |
tell the difference . . . |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
Mick |
Archives