On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:31:04PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Yes, but doing that across all of Fedora is pointless. What works for >> the majority of Server users won't necessarily work for Cloud or >> Workstation. Also, the end user's ability to even discover that it's >> tunable varies greatly from one Edition to the next. One could expect >> sysadmins knowing about this and changing the default on their Server >> install. The Workstation end user may not be as low-level detail >> aware and could just suffer with poor performance because they think >> that's the only option. > > Well, I'm starting from Michael's premise that deadline would be better > for latency for most desktop users (regardless of disk type), and > clearly better when using SSD. This leads me to a different conclusion > than the above. > > It's irrelevant for cloud and any other virt deployment of Atomic or > Server. As far as I know, the special case on hardware where cfq is > better is the one I outlined (on hardware, single spindle, prefer > throughput, mixed workload) and I agree that it's okay to expect > sysadmins to handle that. Well there are a few things to consider here ... 1) Afaik deadline does not support I/O priorities (ionice), whole CFQ does. Which might be harmful when you have processes like tracker competing for I/O in the background 2) What about external media? It might perform a bit better on internal disks but what about USB connected storage? 3) Given the recent developments upstream (BFQ and multi queue) shouldn't we rather wait for that? _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
