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

From: david@lang.hm
Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
Date: ,
Msg-id: alpine.DEB.2.00.1002082033090.6976@asgard.lang.hm
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith)
Responses: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Jeff)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
 Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  ("Albe Laurenz", )
  Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  ("Kevin Grittner", )
   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
    Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Josh Berkus, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Scott Marlowe, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Mark Wong, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Scott Carey, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Jeff Davis, )
 Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (, )
   Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Jeff, )
    Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Scott Marlowe, )
      Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
       Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (, )
        Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Greg Smith, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Jeff, )
     Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline  (Scott Carey, )

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Greg Smith wrote:

> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Have you kept trace of what filesystems are in use ?
>>
>
> Almost everything I do on Linux has been with ext3.  I had a previous
> diversion into VxFS and an upcoming one into XFS that may shed more light on
> all this.

it would be nice if you could try ext4 when doing your tests.

It's new enough that I won't trust it for production data yet, but a lot
of people are jumping on it as if it was just a minor update to ext3
instead of an almost entirely new filesystem.

David Lang

> And, yes, the whole I/O scheduling approach in Linux was just completely
> redesigned for a very recent kernel update.  So even what we think we know is
> already obsolete in some respects.
>
>


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] index is not using
From: "Albe Laurenz"
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign key constraint lock behavour in postgresql