| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dan Harris <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |
| Date: | 2011-03-04 19:02:30 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=fRwgJx1-HwaiAPtRXGQTUNUhE4MpPbUYKLXWu@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:39 AM, 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.
This reflects the results I get with a battery backed caching RAID
controller as well, both Areca and LSI. Noop seemed to scale a little
bit better for me than deadline with larger loads, but they were
pretty much within a few % of each other either way. CFQ was also
much slower for us.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-04 19:07:00 | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |
| Previous Message | Dan Harris | 2011-03-04 18:39:56 | Re: Linux I/O schedulers - CFQ & random seeks |