| 1 |
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007, 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 |
> this article is acient. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Nowadays CFQ and deadline are the best choices. CFQ is the best choice for |
| 17 |
> most desktops and most servers and for some servers and some selected |
| 18 |
> desktops deadline is the best choice. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Why not built all three and switch between them with the apropriate kernel |
| 21 |
> command line. That way you can easily test which one is the best for you. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
How would you go about testing each? |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Mick |
Archives