From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, jmoyer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:45:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120115224532.GD3174@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1326071375.22361.543.camel@sli10-conroe>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:09:35AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
[..]
> > You need to present raw numbers and give us some idea of how close
> > those numbers are to raw hardware capability for us to have any idea
> > what improvements these numbers actually demonstrate.
> Yes, your guess is right. The hardware has limitation. 12 SSD exceeds
> the jbod capability, for both throughput and IOPS, that's why only
> read/write mixed workload impacts. I'll use less SSD in later tests,
> which will demonstrate the performance better. I'll report both raw
> numbers and fiops/cfq numbers later.
If fiops number are better please explain why those numbers are better.
If you cut down on idling, it is obivious that you will get higher
throughput on these flash devices. CFQ does disable queue idling for
non rotational NCQ devices. If higher throughput is due to driving
deeper queue depths, then CFQ can do that too just by changing quantum
and disabling idling.
So I really don't understand that what are you doing fundamentally
different in FIOPS ioscheduler.
The only thing I can think of more accurate accounting per queue in
terms of number of IOs instead of time. Which can just serve to improve
fairness a bit for certain workloads. In practice, I think it might
not matter much.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-15 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-04 6:53 [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler Shaohua Li
2012-01-04 6:53 ` [RFC 1/3]block: seperate CFQ io context management code Shaohua Li
2012-01-04 8:19 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-04 6:53 ` [RFC 2/3]block: FIOPS ioscheduler core Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 6:05 ` Namjae Jeon
2012-01-07 1:06 ` Zhu Yanhai
2012-01-04 6:53 ` [RFC 3/3]block: fiops read/write request scale Shaohua Li
2012-01-04 7:19 ` [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler Dave Chinner
2012-01-05 6:50 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 5:12 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 9:10 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-06 14:37 ` Jan Kara
2012-01-09 1:26 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-15 22:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-08 22:16 ` Dave Chinner
2012-01-09 1:09 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-15 22:45 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-01-16 4:36 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-16 7:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-16 7:55 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-16 8:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-17 1:06 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-17 9:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-18 1:20 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18 13:04 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-19 1:21 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-15 22:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-06 9:41 ` Zhu Yanhai
2012-01-15 22:24 ` Vivek Goyal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120115224532.GD3174@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.