On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Dan Harris <fbsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just another anecdote, I found that the deadline scheduler performed the > best for me. I don't have the benchmarks anymore but deadline vs cfq was > dramatically faster for my tests. I posted this to the list years ago and > others announced similar experiences. Noop was a close 2nd to deadline. This reflects the results I get with a battery backed caching RAID controller as well, both Areca and LSI. Noop seemed to scale a little bit better for me than deadline with larger loads, but they were pretty much within a few % of each other either way. CFQ was also much slower for us. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
