I think you should consider using Linux 4.12 which has bfq (bfq-mq)
for blk-mq. So, you don't need out-of-tree BFQ patches if you switch
to blk-mq (but now you are free to do so even if you have HDDs or SSDs
which benefit from software schedulers since you have some multi-queue
schedulers for them). Just make sure to enable blk-mq (has to be a
boot parameter or build-time choice) in order to gain access to
bfq-mq. And remember that bfq-mq has to be activated manually (the
build-time choice for a default scheduler is not valid for multi-queue
schedulers, you will default to "none" which is effectively the new
Note: there is only one BFQ in 4.12 and it's bfq-mq which runs under
the name of simply BFQ (not bfq-mq, I only used that name to make it
clear that BFQ in 4.12 is a multi-queue version of BFQ).
I always wondered if Btrfs makes any use of FUA if it's enabled for
compatible SATA devices (it's disabled by default because there are
some drives with faulty firmware).
I also wonder if RAID10 is any better (or actually worse?) for
metadata (and system) chunks than RAID1.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bernhard Landauer <obe...@manjaro.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone
> I am looking for a way to test different available schedulers with Manjaro's
> bfq-patched kernels on sytems with both SSD and spinning drives. Since
> phoronix-test-suite apparently is currently useless for this task due to its
> bad config for bfq I am looking for alternatives. Do you have any
> suggestions for me?
> Thank you.
> kind regards
> Bernhard Landauer
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html