From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels@cistron.nl>
Subject: Re: cfq performance gap
References: <457F583B.9090109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <000001c71e76$d4930e90$bb89030a@amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Originator: mikevs@n2o.xs4all.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:56:58 GMT
Message-ID: <457fce6a$0$334$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <000001c71e76$d4930e90$bb89030a@amr.corp.intel.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 778
Lines: 11

In article <000001c71e76$d4930e90$bb89030a@amr.corp.intel.com>,
Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>This rawio test plows through sequential I/O and modulo each small record
>over number of threads.  So each thread appears to be non-contiguous within
>its own process context, overall request hitting the device are sequential.
>I can't see how any application does that kind of I/O pattern.

A NNTP server that has many incoming connections, handled by
multiple threads, that stores the data in cylic buffers ?

Mike.
-
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/