On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 05:00:04AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 05:18:20PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > Given that the non-rotational attribute is not always reported, we can > > take disk size as a max readahead size hint. This patch uses a formula > > that generates the following concrete limits: > > Given that you mentioned the rotational flag and device size in this > mail, as well as benchmarking with an intel SSD - did you measure > how useful large read ahead sizes still are with highend Flash device > that have extremly high read IOP rates? The more the IOPs the larger the "window" you need to keep everything going I suspect. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
