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

From: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 17:22:57
Message-ID: E0A555ED-AADE-4DD1-9F57-31A73002CB05@torgo.978.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Greg Smith wrote:

> 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.
>

It has the abillity to rewrite blocks randomly as well - but I
honestly don't remember if I did that during my cfq/deadline test.
I'd wager I didn't. Maybe I'll get some time to run some more tests
on it in the next couple days

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

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-02-10 17:36:23 Re: Deferred constraint and delete performance
Previous Message Justin Graf 2010-02-10 16:43:43 Re: How exactly PostgreSQL allocates memory for its needs?