From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: SSD slowdown with 3.3.X? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:30:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4F92FCA9.8010502@hardwarefreak.com> References: <4F8F7533.6020300@gmail.com> <4F8F82EC.1060708@teksavvy.com> <4F90C4CF.1010000@gmail.com> <4F921E18.6000301@teksavvy.com> <4F921ECF.2080303@teksavvy.com> <4F922F43.4050809@hardwarefreak.com> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net ([65.41.216.221]:53531 "EHLO greer.hardwarefreak.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751475Ab2DUSaB (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:30:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: cwillu Cc: Mark Lord , Joe Ceklosky , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org >> IDE/ATA development list" 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. -- Stan