> The latter but considering they're a broad variety of workloads I > think it's misleading to call them server workloads as if that's one > particular type of thing, or not applicable to a desktop under IO > pressure. Why? (a) they're using consumer storage devices (b) these > are real workloads rather than simulations (c) even by upstream's own > descriptions of the various IO schedulers only mq-deadline is intended > to be generic. (d) it's really hard to prove anything in this area > without a lot of data.
You are right that the difference between them is blurry. My question comes from being unsure if it's the case that Fedora users are experiencing problems with bfq but are not reporting them, or if there is something specific that is causing that pathological scheduling behavior at Facebook. It was also my understanding that Facebook primarily uses NVMe drives , and that is the class of storage Fedora does not use bfq with. Is it possible these latency problems occurred when using bfq with NVMe drives? I now see that Paolo was cc'd in comment #9 of the bugzilla ticket, so hopefully he responds. > But fair enough, I'll see about collecting some data before asking to > change the IO scheduler yet again. For the record, I definitely agree that mq-deadline should become the default scheduler for NVMe drives.  https://nvmexpress.org/how-facebook-leverages-nvme-cloud-storage-in-the-datacenter/  https://engineering.fb.com/data-center-engineering/introducing-lightning-a-flexible-nvme-jbof/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://firstname.lastname@example.org