> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 > > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler > rather than either none or bfq. > > It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with none, > but those who have heavier IO workloads are likely to be better off > with mq-deadline. > > Further details are in the bug, but let's discuss it on list. Thanks!g I'm a little confused by this proposal because last year the author of bfq, Paolo Valente, worked with the Fedora community to switch to bfq by default on non-NVMe drives [1]. Now another kernel developer is telling us that bfq has performance problems that ostensibly aren't being fixed. So my immediate question is: have these problems been reported to Paolo and what has his response been? >From what I can tell bfq was chosen because it improved the responsiveness of the desktop, and so I'm curious where it's falling short. Are there performance issues with workloads that Fedora users are running, or have these latency spikes primarily been seen with Facebook's server workloads? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738828 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
