Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: BFQ Scheduler Will Try To Go Mainline In The Linux Kernel

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rallos Zek View Post
    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.
    This is why benchmarks are often meaningless when measuring 'responsiveness'.

    Don't take this the wrong way, but the fact you would even bring up Deadline shows you don't have any real-world experience with it on a Desktop system doing parallel tasks.

    Swap to Deadline, start copying a large file off your HDD to a device with high write speed, and then attempt to open, say, LibreOffice Writer.

    Then try the same thing with BFQ.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by korrode View Post
    This is why benchmarks are often meaningless when measuring 'responsiveness'.

    Don't take this the wrong way, but the fact you would even bring up Deadline shows you don't have any real-world experience with it on a Desktop system doing parallel tasks.

    Swap to Deadline, start copying a large file off your HDD to a device with high write speed, and then attempt to open, say, LibreOffice Writer.

    Then try the same thing with BFQ.
    Exactly what is done by one of the benchmarks reported in the BFQ result page (http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paol...ed/results.php). The only difference is that the benchmark repeats this action a lot of times to compute more reliable statistics, and clears the cache before each repetition for a fair comparison (among BFQ, CFQ, DEADLINE and NOOP).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •