On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:16:52PM +0800, Jos Houtman wrote: > > > > Next to that I was wondering if there are any plans to make sure that not > > all dirty-files are written back in the same interval. > > > > In my case all database files are written back each 30 seconds, while I > > would prefer them to be more divided over the interval. > > There another question I have: does the writeback go through the io > scheduler? Because no matter the io scheduler or the tuning done, the > writeback algorithm totally starves the reads. I noticed this annoying writes-starve-reads problem too. I'll look into it. > See the url below for an example with CFQ, but deadline or noop all show > this behaviour: > http://94.100.113.33/535450001-535500000/535451701-535451800/535451800_6_L7g > t.jpeg > > Is there anything I can do about this behaviour by creating a better > interleaving of the reads and writes? I guess it should be handled in the generic block io layer. Once we solved the writes-starve-reads problem, the bursty-writeback behavior becomes a no-problem for SSD. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
