|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-AT-oracle.com> |
|| ||Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes |
|| ||Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Big nack on this patch. Ted, this is EXACTLY where I told you we saw big
> write regressions (sqlite performance drops by a factor of 4-5). Do a
> git log on fs/buffer.c and see the original patch (which does what your
> patch does) and the later revert. No idea why you are now suggestion
> making that exact change?!
Jens, if I can re-create the 'fsync' times (I haven't yet), then the
default scheduler _will_ be switched to AS.
> Low latency is nice, but not at the cost of 4-5x throughput for real
> world cases.
I'm sorry, but that fsync thing _is_ a real-world case, and it's the one
that a hell of a lot more people care about than some idiotic sqlite
You have a test-case now. Consider it a priority, or consider CFQ to be a
"for crazy servers that only care about throughput".
Quite frankly, the fact that I can see _seconds_ of latencies with a
really good SSD is not acceptable. The fact that it is by design is even
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)