Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BFQ Scheduler Will Try To Go Mainline In The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by AnAkIn View Post
    Maybe you should check the benchmarks on 3.13 http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paol...ed/results.php
    Any independent benchmarks that show BFQ to be better than whats already in the kernel?

    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
    Finally a usable, low-latency I/O scheduler for linux. I hope the kernel developers get this merged ASAP.
    Wheres the proof that it is Useable, low-latency or faster? I tried it out a few weeks ago and it was slower than Deadline and CFQ, with higher latency. BFQ is nothing more than snake oil.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
      Wheres the proof that it is Useable, low-latency or faster?
      Works for me.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
        Works for me.
        And for me.

        I don't have any SSDs or clever RAID setups, but application load times with disk-intensive stuff in the background (mostly compiling) are 50% or so better on my 7200rpm spinning rust.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by FLHerne View Post
          And for me.

          I don't have any SSDs or clever RAID setups, but application load times with disk-intensive stuff in the background (mostly compiling) are 50% or so better on my 7200rpm spinning rust.
          When my HDDs are under heavy load, it makes a lot more than 50% difference for me. Under heavy background I/O load, sometimes it can take 1 or 2 minutes for a small program to start with CFQ, but with BFQ, just the normal few seconds.

          You can see the same thing in some of the tests on the BFQ website. Notice the "X" marks where several other I/O schedulers fail to complete the I/O within 60 seconds.

          Before I found BFQ, I could hardly believe that the linux I/O schedulers were so bad that heavy I/O could virtually freeze interactive tasks on my computer. But it was the case for both cfq and deadline. Hence, my comment that finally the (mainline) linux kernel looks like it will have a decent I/O scheduler (and I will not have to use customize pf kernel's any more).

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by FLHerne View Post
            And for me.

            I don't have any SSDs or clever RAID setups, but application load times with disk-intensive stuff in the background (mostly compiling) are 50% or so better on my 7200rpm spinning rust.
            ++

            and for me

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
              When my HDDs are under heavy load, it makes a lot more than 50% difference for me. Under heavy background I/O load, sometimes it can take 1 or 2 minutes for a small program to start with CFQ, but with BFQ, just the normal few seconds.
              That could just come down to the compilers being fairly CPU-heavy too, so that improving the I/O latency/throughput just lets things wait for CPU time quicker.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
                ++

                and for me
                Add me too.

                Been using it for years, works great on my old & new laptops.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by halo9en View Post
                  Been using it for years, works great on my old & new laptops.
                  Are you thinking of Kolivas' BFS? As far as I know, BFQ is a little less than 2 years old. I started using it last year.

                  BFS is a process scheduler. BFQ is an I/O scheduler. Completely different things.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                    Are you thinking of Kolivas' BFS? As far as I know, BFQ is a little less than 2 years old. I started using it last year.

                    BFS is a process scheduler. BFQ is an I/O scheduler. Completely different things.
                    I know the difference.

                    BFQ has been around since 2008 (http://lwn.net/Articles/275978/) and I've been using it since the days of zen-kernel.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by halo9en View Post
                      BFQ has been around since 2008 (http://lwn.net/Articles/275978/) and I've been using it since the days of zen-kernel.
                      Thanks for the reference, I did not know it was that old! I guess I only heard about it once it got more popular.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X