Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Fresh I/O Scheduler Benchmarks: Linux 4.13 With BFQ, CFQ, Kyber, Deadline

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

  • #11
    For a Linux sw development/multimedia/gaming pc, it looks like the deadline i/o scheduler still is the best choice for a ssd. I am wrong?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
      For a Linux sw development/multimedia/gaming pc, it looks like the deadline i/o scheduler still is the best choice for a ssd. I am wrong?
      Well, to my eyes the "None" scheduler seems to have the best balance on a fast SSD...
      KISS wins again

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Veto View Post

        Well, to my eyes the "None" scheduler seems to have the best balance on a fast SSD...
        KISS wins again
        The None scheduler has poor reading results and a sw development/multimedia/gaming pc does a lot of reading.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by jwilliams View Post

          I think you have it backwards. Low-latency is responsive, high throughput has high-latency and is less responsive.
          That does seem to make more sense.

          Comment


          • #15
            Am I the only one looking at those graphs with absolutely no clue as to which scheduler is better?

            Comment


            • #16
              From my understanding http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/
              BFQ is meant as a replacement for CFQ where load of a single application or thread won't hijack all throughput. Having a parallel load tester may be more beneficial to see than a straight single load.

              Comment


              • #17
                I see no clear advantage. Sure it's better in some cases, but it's also worse in other cases...

                Comment

                Working...
                X