| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
| Date: | 2010-02-08 15:30:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4B702E05.1000708@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'll keep this in mind as something to try if we have problem
> performance in line with what that page describes, though....
>
That's basically what I've been trying to make clear all along: people
should keep an open mind, watch what happens, and not make any
assumptions. There's no clear cut preference for one scheduler or the
other in all situations. I've seen CFQ do much better, you and Albe
report situations where the opposite is true. I was just happy to see
another report of someone running into the same sort of issue I've been
seeing, because I didn't have very much data to offer about why the
standard advice of "always use deadline for a database app" might not
apply to everyone.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-02-08 17:49:20 | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-02-08 15:24:56 | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |