On 1/12/2013 6:06 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> Unlikely to make up the difference is the scheduler. Parallel fs's >> like XFS don't perform nearly as well with CFQ, so you should have a >> kernel parameter elevator=noop. > > uh… how can the filesystem chosen be relevant to the disk elevator? It's the other way round. The chosen elevator can cause problems with the filesystem. You should find this relevant conversation amongst the lead XFS developers educational: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00464.html > CFQ will try to optimize access to reduce seeks "Completely Fair Queuing" -- The name alone tells you how it works. It most certainly does not do what you state. Please read the brief Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFQ > and should be completely independent on the filesystem used on top. Operative word: "should" The USA should not be $16 Trillion in debt, but it is. By international law whales should not be killed, but they still are. Etc. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
