Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261874AbUKJCI1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:08:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261854AbUKJCI1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:08:27 -0500 Received: from FW-30-241.go.retevision.es ([62.174.241.30]:50589 "EHLO mayhem.ghetto") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261868AbUKJCHv (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:07:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:07:44 +0100 To: Robert Love Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ideas for a new io scheduler for desktop Message-ID: <20041110020744.GA13741@larroy.com> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Love , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20041110013235.GA13691@larroy.com> <1100051419.18601.105.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1100051419.18601.105.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: piotr@larroy.com (Pedro Larroy) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1971 Lines: 47 On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:50:19PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 02:32 +0100, Pedro Larroy wrote: > > > I think that a new io-scheduler that gave priority to bursty access to > > block devices would be interesting for desktop and workstation use, and > > even for some servers. > > > > I'm often waiting for graphical aplications, vim, mutt, and almost every > > program to which I have to interact with because they are blocked > > waiting for just a few blocks of IO that won't get served fast just > > because there's a single process hog that's provoking that high latency. > > > > In network terminology the disk just feel like a network interface without QoS, > > service time just goes up insanely with just one client in the queue. > > > > Although much care should be taken in designing this algorithm to > > prevent unfairness, I believe there's room for improvement in this area. > > > > I'd like to read about your opinions. > > What you are seeing is the affect of read requests being synchronous, > and thus the pain of read latency, and write requests to one part of the > disk starving other requests. > > Have you tried the new 2.6 I/O schedulers? They should prevent this > problem. > > If you are using 2.6, then your problem might not lie with the I/O > scheduler. Read request deadlines are very low in both the deadline and > anticipatory I/O scheduler. > > Robert Love > Yes, I use them in all of my boxes. Regards. -- Pedro Larroy Tovar | Linux & Network consultant | pedro%larroy.com Make debian mirrors with debian-multimirror: http://pedro.larroy.com/deb_mm/ * Las patentes de programaci?n son nocivas para la innovaci?n * http://proinnova.hispalinux.es/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/