Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.19 I/O Scheduler SSD Benchmarks With Kyber, BFQ, Deadline, CFQ

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

  • #21
    Well that was a waste of a click

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

      This. Asking the right questions. Does anyone have idea about a test for this to add to the benchmarking?
      Already available, in several forms. For example, directly for the phoronix suite:
      OpenBenchmarking.org, Phoronix Test Suite, Linux benchmarking, automated benchmarking, benchmarking results, benchmarking repository, open source benchmarking, benchmarking test profiles


      If you try it, and find issues, please ask for help on the bfq-iosched google group, I'll be more than happy to fix any problem for you. Or just ask even if you just want more information.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by linner View Post
        I'm still trying to figure out why my Linux servers hang when writing large amounts of data. I have been battling this for like 10+ years. Does not matter what scheduler I use. I've tried native board chipsets, external cards, different motherboards, everything, doesn't matter. If I write a large amount of data the whole system freezes up periodically. This is independent of the drive(s). A heavy write task to any drive periodically freezes the whole system.

        This is especially problematic in virtual machines. There MUST be something I'm doing wrong because cloud hosts don't seem to exhibit this behavior (or maybe I don't notice).

        So frustrating and this is not the right place to ask for help but I just throw this out everywhere hoping that someone, somewhere, knows what the problem is.
        It's a problem in the virtual-memory subsystem. If you are curious, write to me and I'll send you a short document describing the causes of the problem. I have also made a solution, but never turned it into a production-quality kernel patch, for lack of time (and of funding from possible interested companies).

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by paolo View Post

          It's a problem in the virtual-memory subsystem. If you are curious, write to me and I'll send you a short document describing the causes of the problem. I have also made a solution, but never turned it into a production-quality kernel patch, for lack of time (and of funding from possible interested companies).
          I think that would be a very amazing patch to have, so many of us are really annoyed with this.
          It'd be great if you could get this out.

          Thank you!

          Comment

          Working...
          X