On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 20:04 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > I'm not too crazy about it either. How about just using 'desktop' since > > this is obviously what we are really targetting? 'latency' isn't fully > > descriptive either, since it may not necessarily provide the best single > > IO latency (noop would). > > Grin. "Perfect is the enemy of good" :) > Avg > 16.24 175.82 154.38 228.97 147.16 144.5 noop > 43.23 57.39 96.13 148.25 180.09 105.0 deadline Yep, that's where it falls down. Noop basically fails here because it treats all IO as equal, which obviously isn't true for most people. But even for pure read workloads (is the above the mixed read/write, or just read?), latency would be excellent with noop but the desktop experience would not. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
