On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It's not hard to make the latency good, the hard bit is making sure we > > also perform well for all other scenarios. > > Looking at the numbers from Mike: > > | dd competing against perf stat -- konsole -e exec timings, 5 back to > | back runs > | Avg > | before 9.15 14.51 9.39 15.06 9.90 11.6 > | after [+patch] 1.76 1.54 1.93 1.88 1.56 1.7 > > _PLEASE_ make read latencies this good - the numbers are _vastly_ > better. We'll worry about the 'other' things _after_ we've reached good > latencies. > > I thought this principle was a well established basic rule of Linux IO > scheduling. Why do we have to have a 'latency vs. bandwidth' discussion > again and again? I thought latency won hands down. Just a note: In the testing I've done so far, we're better off today than ever, and I can't recall beating on root ever being anything less than agony for interactivity. IO seekers look a lot like CPU sleepers to me. Looks like both can be as annoying as hell ;-) -Mike _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
