Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, 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: 2010-02-11 01:46:03
Message-ID: 4B73615B.6060700@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I'd love to see someone do a comparison of early to mid 2.6 kernels (2.6.18 like RHEL5) to very
> up to date 2.6 kernels. On fast hardware.

I'd be happy just to find fast hardware that works on every kernel from
the RHEL5 2.6.18 up to the latest one without issues.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message david 2010-02-11 01:52:08 Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-02-11 01:42:13 Re: perf problem with huge table