Should Ubuntu Use The BFQ I/O Scheduler?

[boxie]

yes
.
.

you sir, are stirring shit :P

[aphysically]

The BFQ dev seemed to be implying that the changes in 5.2 make BFQ preferable for even NVMe drives and did away with its major read+write problem areas. Excited to see what your new benchmarks say.

[Cape]

Does porn load quicker?

No, but you can wank while you are defragmenting you filesystem ;-)

* This post is sponsored by the Low Effort Internet Jokes Gang!

[moilami]

Do people still use those these days?

They are excellent data storage.

[uid313]

Yes. I still do, and many people around here do too.

Why can't you understand you simply can't drop support for hardware that is still being actively released only because a new technology came out?
Yeah, I know SSD tech has been out in the market for like 9 years, but they still make HDDs.

I am not saying support should be dropped for HDDs or BFQ should be removed, but maybe most people these days have SSDs and that maybe BFQ isn't such a good default choice for most people.

But maybe it is possible for the system to determine if the storage device is a HDD or a SSD and set the appropriate scheduler.

[elatllat]

Not for server because "BFQ doesn't perform well for PostgreSQL database server workloads."

[carewolf]

By the way bfq does inherit ionice priorities from the task's CPU niceness if no IO priority class is set, this has been the default since it was first introduced.
See: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux...osched.c#n4895

Cool, then the documentation is just out of date, and I am running into another issue. I have had pretty good success with just adding an explicit ionice level to my icecc daemon though.

[S.Pam]

Why don't you try cgroup? very easy. There's a script to make it even easier*. It's only cgroups v2 (unified) for now, but that's the future anyway

Also, cgroups have much higher granularity than ionice/nice. Values are 0-10000 by default.

* https://github.com/Gatak/cgexec

[treba]

Just tried it on my Fedora 30/ssd laptop and I don't know if that's just bias but feels quite a bit more responsive when having running (io-heavy) stuff in the background. Will keep it on for a while and see.

[bug77]

I see the desktop responsiveness as a mix of latency vs throughput. somewhere in the middle where we sacrifice some throughput perf for other apps being able to function and not being blocked - but still getting high throughput for those tasks that need it (e.g. loading a level and having a webpage load from cache at the same time)

Neah, desktop is all about low-latency. If you're loading a game level while browsing, you won't notice if the loading takes a few more seconds.
Although, truth be told, I'm not so sure why I need the low-latency either. My first PC ran MS-DOS and only later it got Windows 3.1/3.11. To me the current DEs are pretty nifty as they are.