Il giorno 30/mag/2014, alle ore 19:09, Vivek Goyal ha
scritto:
> […]
> Instead of just looking at numbers, I am keen on knowing what's the
> fundamental design change which allows this. What is CFQ doing wrong
> which BFQ gets right.
>
I think that Tejun has already highlighted the key
Hey, Vivek.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:55:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Now CFQ also dynamically adjusts the slice length based on the how
> many queues are ready to do IO. One problem with fixed slice lenth
> round robin was that if there are lot of queues doing IO, then after
> serving one
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:26:09PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:09:58PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Are you referring to BFQ paper. I had read one in the past and it was
> > all about how to achieve more accurate fairness. At this point of time
> > I don't
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:31:46PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > What allows BFQ to provide the above features is its accurate
> > scheduling engine (patches 1-4), combined with a set of simple
> > heuristics and improvements (patches 5-14).
>
> This is very hard to understand. This puzzle need
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 02:42:24PM +0200, paolo wrote:
> From: Paolo Valente
>
> [Re-posting, previous attempt seems to have partially failed]
>
> Hi,
> this patchset introduces the last version of BFQ, a proportional-share
> storage-I/O scheduler. BFQ also supports hierarchical scheduling with
Hello,
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:09:58PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Are you referring to BFQ paper. I had read one in the past and it was
> all about how to achieve more accurate fairness. At this point of time
> I don't think that smarter algorithm is the problem. Until and unless
> somebody
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:16:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:32:28AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > I don't think most of the people care about strong fairness guarantee.
> > As an algorithm round robin is not bad for ensuring fairness. CFQ had
> >
Hello, Vivek.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:32:28AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I don't think most of the people care about strong fairness guarantee.
> As an algorithm round robin is not bad for ensuring fairness. CFQ had
> started with that but then it stopped focussing on fairness and rather
>
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 02:42:24PM +0200, paolo wrote:
[..]
> Strong fairness guarantees (already provided by BFQ-v0)
>
> As for long-term guarantees, BFQ distributes the device throughput
> (and not just the device time) as desired to I/O-bound applications,
> with any workload and regardless
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 02:42:24PM +0200, paolo wrote:
[..]
Strong fairness guarantees (already provided by BFQ-v0)
As for long-term guarantees, BFQ distributes the device throughput
(and not just the device time) as desired to I/O-bound applications,
with any workload and regardless of the
Hello, Vivek.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:32:28AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I don't think most of the people care about strong fairness guarantee.
As an algorithm round robin is not bad for ensuring fairness. CFQ had
started with that but then it stopped focussing on fairness and rather
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:16:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Vivek.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:32:28AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I don't think most of the people care about strong fairness guarantee.
As an algorithm round robin is not bad for ensuring fairness. CFQ had
started with
Hello,
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:09:58PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Are you referring to BFQ paper. I had read one in the past and it was
all about how to achieve more accurate fairness. At this point of time
I don't think that smarter algorithm is the problem. Until and unless
somebody can
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 02:42:24PM +0200, paolo wrote:
From: Paolo Valente paolo.vale...@unimore.it
[Re-posting, previous attempt seems to have partially failed]
Hi,
this patchset introduces the last version of BFQ, a proportional-share
storage-I/O scheduler. BFQ also supports
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:31:46PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
What allows BFQ to provide the above features is its accurate
scheduling engine (patches 1-4), combined with a set of simple
heuristics and improvements (patches 5-14).
This is very hard to understand. This puzzle need to be
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:26:09PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:09:58PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Are you referring to BFQ paper. I had read one in the past and it was
all about how to achieve more accurate fairness. At this point of time
I don't think that
Hey, Vivek.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:55:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Now CFQ also dynamically adjusts the slice length based on the how
many queues are ready to do IO. One problem with fixed slice lenth
round robin was that if there are lot of queues doing IO, then after
serving one
Il giorno 30/mag/2014, alle ore 19:09, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com ha
scritto:
[…]
Instead of just looking at numbers, I am keen on knowing what's the
fundamental design change which allows this. What is CFQ doing wrong
which BFQ gets right.
I think that Tejun has already highlighted
From: Paolo Valente
[Re-posting, previous attempt seems to have partially failed]
Hi,
this patchset introduces the last version of BFQ, a proportional-share
storage-I/O scheduler. BFQ also supports hierarchical scheduling with
a cgroups interface. The first version of BFQ was submitted a few
From: Paolo Valente paolo.vale...@unimore.it
[Re-posting, previous attempt seems to have partially failed]
Hi,
this patchset introduces the last version of BFQ, a proportional-share
storage-I/O scheduler. BFQ also supports hierarchical scheduling with
a cgroups interface. The first version of
20 matches
Mail list logo
