| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
| Cc: | david(at)lang(dot)hm, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, 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: | 2010-02-10 06:37:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4B725410.5010000@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeff wrote:
> I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers and at the time
> deadline or noop smashed cfq. Now, it is 100% possible since then
> that they've made vast improvements to cfq and or the VM to get better
> or similar performance. I recall a vintage of 2.6 where they severely
> messed up the VM. Glad I didn't upgrade to that one :)
>
> Here's the old post:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-04/msg00155.php
pgiosim doesn't really mix writes into there though, does it? The mixed
read/write situations are the ones where the scheduler stuff gets messy.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-02-10 07:11:30 | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-02-10 05:49:24 | Re: PostgreSQL - case studies |