| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dan Harris" <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net>, <Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |
| Date: | 2011-03-04 19:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4D70E3F4020000250003B4B1@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Dan Harris <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net> wrote:
> Just another anecdote, I found that the deadline scheduler
> performed the best for me. I don't have the benchmarks anymore
> but deadline vs cfq was dramatically faster for my tests. I
> posted this to the list years ago and others announced similar
> experiences. Noop was a close 2nd to deadline.
That was our experience when we benchmarked a few years ago. Some
more recent benchmarks seem to have shown improvements in cfq, but
we haven't had enough of a problem with our current setup to make it
seem worth the effort of running another set of benchmarks on that.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rosser Schwarz | 2011-03-04 19:09:34 | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-03-04 19:02:30 | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |