Originally posted by turboNOMAD
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Axboe Achieves 8M IOPS Per-Core With Newest Linux Optimization Patches
Collapse
X
-
I looked at the article and all I saw was Schneider Weisse. I usually go for Tap 5, but I haven't seen it in quite a while
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RedEyed View Post
Potentially, any kind of optimisation is good for regular user.
Even if it is not faster, it will use less power.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by turboNOMAD View PostSo the question is, will existing desktop applications (like Steam games) see any improvement at all, or the code paths being optimized are already taking negligible time/power (in desktop use case) before the optimizations?
For most of us that sort of workload isn't realistic, but just because we don't maximize throughput, we would still see the 2-3x perf improvement (referring to the improvements between 2.5M to 8M IOPS articles). AFAIK it's only IO_URING though, I don't know what actually supports that regarding typical desktop or gamer usage, perhaps if using a network share like Samba?
On the plus side, we know it's considerably better than what preceded IO_URING, so any software that would stand to benefit and doesn't yet support IO_URING would probably consider the value of the support more worthwhile now
TL;DR: If you would benefit, it'd be in latency reduction for I/O. Should be more noticeable with heavy random I/O tasks, provided they leverage IO_URING.
- Likes 7
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by turboNOMAD View PostI think the question of MastaG is more like: do any of this optimizations even affect regular desktop use case? E.g. when loading a game on Steam, IO concurrency (queue depth) is very low, and existing software does not explicitly use the io_uring API. So the question is, will existing desktop applications (like Steam games) see any improvement at all, or the code paths being optimized are already taking negligible time/power (in desktop use case) before the optimizations?
- Likes 5
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by blackshard View Postmeasuring throughput of an algorithm/api/whatever is sensible only when all the variables around stay the same.
Those guys are all on different hardware and there is no comparison, so that's just pure numbers that actually tell nothing about the optimizations they do to the api...
Paradoxically some kind of optimization for a setup may result in performance loss for another, where are the comparisons?
- Likes 7
Leave a comment:
-
I think the question of MastaG is more like: do any of this optimizations even affect regular desktop use case? E.g. when loading a game on Steam, IO concurrency (queue depth) is very low, and existing software does not explicitly use the io_uring API. So the question is, will existing desktop applications (like Steam games) see any improvement at all, or the code paths being optimized are already taking negligible time/power (in desktop use case) before the optimizations?
- Likes 6
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MastaG View PostBut could this also have a positive effect for a regular desktop user running a webbrowser and playing some games on Steam for example?
Even if it is not faster, it will use less power.
- Likes 11
Leave a comment:
-
But could this also have a positive effect for a regular desktop user running a webbrowser and playing some games on Steam for example?
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Not only the same guy but also same hardware. Otherwise it would be pointless.
- Likes 18
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: