On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 08:04:37PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > i'd say 'latency' describes it even better. 'interactivity' as a term is > > > a bit overladen. > > > > 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). > > As Linus has already pointed out, it's not necessarily "desktop" > versus "server". There will be certain high frequency transaction > database workloads (for example) that will very much care about > latency. I think "low_latency" may be the best term to use. Not necessarily, but typically it will be. As already noted, I don't think latency itself is a very descriptive term for this. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
