Originally posted by Britoid
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Should Ubuntu Use The BFQ I/O Scheduler?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by FlawlessVolcano View Post
Both NOOP and Deadline were deleted from kernel couple releases ago, so yes BFQ is certainly better than some non-existing code...
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View Post
blk-mq was not on by default for me, to even use BFQ, I had to first enable blk-mq on the kernel command-line, update grub and reboot. Debian probably changed the default to off for blk-mq.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
Then you are using a kernel that is at least ~9 months old, I'd suggest you use a current kernel before you pass judgement on an I/O scheduler that is under active development.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View PostIt is Linux, everything is always under active development and BFQ is several years old. And from what I gathered from the documentation. The issue is simply a better default in CFQ. If BFQ has implemented the same default, they have done so very recently and without updating the documentation.
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
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View Post
Do people still use those these days?
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.
- Likes 4
Comment
Comment