> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
> rather than either none or bfq.
> It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with none,
> but those who have heavier IO workloads are likely to be better off
> with mq-deadline.
> Further details are in the bug, but let's discuss it on list. Thanks!g

I'm a little confused by this proposal because last year the author of bfq, 
Paolo Valente, worked with the Fedora community to switch to bfq by default on 
non-NVMe drives [1]. Now another kernel developer is telling us that bfq has 
performance problems that ostensibly aren't being fixed. So my immediate 
question is: have these problems been reported to Paolo and what has his 
response been?

From what I can tell bfq was chosen because it improved the responsiveness of 
the desktop, and so I'm curious where it's falling short. Are there performance 
issues with workloads that Fedora users are running, or have these latency 
spikes primarily been seen with Facebook's server workloads?

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738828
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to