On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Why not? Nobody will think of 'latency' as something that requires noop, > but as something that in practice achieves low latencies, for stuff that > people use. Alright, I'll acknowledge that if that's the general consensus. I may be somewhat biased myself. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
