[Ocfs2-users] cfq vs. deadline?

[Wim Coekaerts]

we did some testing (some other group) and there was really not that big
a performance difference between them , as was bad, the rest was ok.

deadline definitely works well the thing is that since cfq is the
default it's very annoying that it was broken :) there was a paper
presented last year at oracleworld linux performance work, by sue Lee.
I am not sure if those papers are still online, they did the analysis

Wim

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:47:06AM -0400, Brian Long wrote:
> I understand Oracle currently recommends using the deadline scheduler
> because of a bug in cfq.  In reading a recent thread on nahant-
> list at redhat.com, using the deadline scheduler on an NFS server reduced
> IO wait significantly.  Also, the description of the deadline scheduler
> sounds like it would be ideal for databases.
> 
> Does Oracle have any recommendation wrt. sticking with the deadline
> scheduler even after cfq is fixed?  Have any performance numbers been
> generated which show one scheduler is better than the other on dedicated
> DB hosts?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> /Brian/
> -- 
>        Brian Long                      |         |           |
>        IT Data Center Systems          |       .|||.       .|||.
>        Cisco Linux Developer           |   ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
>        Phone: (919) 392-7363           |   C i s c o   S y s t e m s
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-users mailing list
> Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users