On 12-04-21 02:30 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > On 4/21/2012 6:45 AM, cwillu wrote: >>> Probably not relevant in this case but maybe worth mentioning to get the >>> word out: >>> >>> "As of kernel 3.2.12, the default i/o scheduler, CFQ, will defeat much >>> of the parallelization in XFS." >>> >>> http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ >> >> Not that it's terribly relevant to btrfs, but do you have a better >> citation for that than a very recent one-line wiki change that only >> cites the user's own anecdote? > > Apologies for the rather weak citation. It was simply easier to quote > that wiki entry. > > How about something directly from Dave's fingers: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg10824.html > > The many issues with CFQ+XFS didn't start with 3.2.12, but long before that. Thanks for the link. That's handy to know. The problems there are for XFS+RAID vs. CFQ, not XFS by itself. Enterprise servers will normally have RAID under XFS, but not all smaller systems. Cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
