Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Switching To The BFQ I/O Scheduler For Better Responsiveness & Throughput

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

  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Then send a pull request.
    i asked question. sending pr to ask a question is somewhat unconventional

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    i honestly believe that i can change io schedulers and then run script without sudo. or run script which calls sudo only to change io schedulers
    Then send a pull request.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    What is scary about it or is this a mindless "sudo bad" response?
    this is "sudo to run too complex to quickly verify script bad" response
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Do you honestly believe that you can change IO schedulers without having elevated privileges?
    i honestly believe that i can change io schedulers and then run script without sudo. or run script which calls sudo only to change io schedulers

    Leave a comment:


  • Space Heater
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    i have one, but your test is scary. do you have test which can be run without sudo?
    What is scary about it or is this a mindless "sudo bad" response? Do you honestly believe that you can change IO schedulers without having elevated privileges?

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by paolo View Post
    If you have one, would you be willing to run a batch of latency tests on it? It boils down to running the Phoronix version of the start-up time benchmark, for each scheduler, or to executing
    git clone https://github.com/Algodev-github/S && S/run_multiple_benchmarks/test_responsiveness.sh
    (the latter option will automatically try all available scheduler)
    i have one, but your test is scary. do you have test which can be run without sudo?

    Leave a comment:


  • ermo
    replied
    Originally posted by AndyChow View Post

    Sorry for the late response. As another user has pointed out, bfq is bfq-mq. Kernel > 5.0 removed single-queue anyway, and your kernel parameters are probably not necessary (although if it's working now, no need to mess with it).

    mq-deadline, bfq and none are all mq. none is like a mq-noop. It doesn't do re-orderuing, low overhead, but allows merges. And in my experience the best scheduler there is, for my use anyway.
    Are you on an NVMe drive? And -- out of nothing but curiousity -- what is your usage scenario?

    Leave a comment:


  • RussianNeuroMancer
    replied
    Originally posted by geearf View Post
    bfq in this case is bfq-mq so you're good.
    Originally posted by AndyChow View Post
    As another user has pointed out, bfq is bfq-mq.
    Thanks for clarification! I guess mq-deadline name mess things up a bit, since there is no single queue deadline anymore, right?

    Originally posted by AndyChow View Post
    Kernel > 5.0 removed single-queue anyway, and your kernel parameters are probably not necessary (although if it's working now, no need to mess with it).
    bfq kernel module does not load unless I added these parameters (but I guess not all three was necessary, maybe one or two).

    Leave a comment:


  • polarathene
    replied
    Originally posted by paolo View Post

    No, sorry, I haven't bought that too yet. If you have one, would you be willing to run a batch of latency tests on it? It boils down to running the Phoronix version of the start-up time benchmark, for each scheduler, or to executing
    git clone https://github.com/Algodev-github/S && S/run_multiple_benchmarks/test_responsiveness.sh
    (the latter option will automatically try all available scheduler)
    I don't have one myself yet. Michael does, perhaps he could do a new disk I/O scheduler article, I think it's been a while since the last one.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndyChow
    replied
    Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post

    Kernel version is 5.1.19, and I did enabled multiqueue schedulers this way.
    Sorry for the late response. As another user has pointed out, bfq is bfq-mq. Kernel > 5.0 removed single-queue anyway, and your kernel parameters are probably not necessary (although if it's working now, no need to mess with it).

    mq-deadline, bfq and none are all mq. none is like a mq-noop. It doesn't do re-orderuing, low overhead, but allows merges. And in my experience the best scheduler there is, for my use anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • paolo
    replied
    Originally posted by polarathene View Post

    ? I think you misunderstood me.

    The Samsung device is a different beast, it's great top tier product for it's area of storage. The Intel Optane 900P or 905P is not a traditional NVMe SSD product, it's known for it's low latency, Samsung has a different product to compete with it, max throughput isn't the important metric for these alternative storage products.

    Perhaps these results/benchmarks will indicate that better?

    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/in...ssd,38987.html

    Phoronix also had some coverage of their own(but I still suggest that toms hardware one):
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ane-900p&num=3
    No, sorry, I haven't bought that too yet. If you have one, would you be willing to run a batch of latency tests on it? It boils down to running the Phoronix version of the start-up time benchmark, for each scheduler, or to executing
    git clone https://github.com/Algodev-github/S && S/run_multiple_benchmarks/test_responsiveness.sh
    (the latter option will automatically try all available scheduler)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X