Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:33:41 -0800 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:47:42 -0500 Paul Clements wrote: >> >>> There have been numerous reports of problems with nbd and cfq. Deadline >>> gives better performance for nbd, anyway, so let's use it by default. > > Please define "problems". If it's just "slowness" then we can live with > that, but I'd hope that Jens is aware and that it's understood. > > It it's "hangs" or "oopses" then we panic.
The two problems I have experienced (which may already be fixed): 1) nbd hangs with cfq on RHEL 5 (2.6.18) -- this may well have been fixed There's a similar debian bug that has been filed as well: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447638 2) nbd performs about 10% better (the last time I tested) with deadline vs. cfq (the overhead of cfq doesn't provide much advantage to nbd [not being a real disk], and you end up going through the I/O scheduler on the nbd server anyway, so it makes sense that deadline is better with nbd) There have been posts to nbd-general mailing list about problems with cfq and nbd also. -- Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
