On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:34:12 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. > > It's really not that simple, otherwise the schedulers would be much > simpler. It's pretty easy to get good latency if you disregard any > throughput concerns, I'd be very interested in a scheduler like that..... How much work would it be to make it ? (if nothing else it would be a good number to have "should be within 50% of the perfect one for the tradeoff") -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
