On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:23:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 01:21 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 10/13/2017 01:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2017 12:05 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>>
> >>> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:23:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 01:21 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 10/13/2017 01:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2017 12:05 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>>
> >>> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
>
On 10/13/2017 01:21 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 01:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/13/2017 12:05 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
>>> performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially about sequential
On 10/13/2017 01:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 12:05 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
>> performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially about sequential I/O
>> on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc,
On 10/13/2017 12:05 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
> performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially about sequential I/O
> on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc, qla2xxx, SRP...)
>
> Turns out one big issue
Hi Jens,
In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we found that I/O
performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially about sequential I/O
on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc, qla2xxx, SRP...)
Turns out one big issue causes the performance regression: requests are
still
6 matches
Mail list logo