Since they switched to the Completely Fair Scheduler [wikipedia.org] to improve performance then it means one or two things. Either they have failed, as it seems to run slower than earlier Linux versions in the BSD test, or the tests that BSD chose are "untypical", maybe selected to show a particular advantage to BSD. I don't have the expertise to tell which, but I would be happier seeing some benchmarks from an independent source rather than BSD.
For one, CFQ is not supposed to be an optimized I/O scheduler for database loads. That's where the Deadline scheduler comes in. You wouldn't want a "Fair" scheduler on your database server, as you would end up putting the database in I/O wait to handle lower priority processes.
As t'other poster pointed out; CFS = Completely Fair Scheduling = CPU scheduler = what process gets how much of the CPU CFQ = Completely Fair Queuing = I/O scheduler = what process gets how much of the hard disc
FWIW, on our database loads at least, I find that whilst deadline tends to give the lowest single transaction rate, CFQ gives better overall performance (i.e. more transactions served) over a given time period. Anyone tried the CFQ, deadline and no-op schedulers on a solid state disc yet?
Bad news for Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad news for Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CFS = Completely Fair Scheduling = CPU scheduler = what process gets how much of the CPU
CFQ = Completely Fair Queuing = I/O scheduler = what process gets how much of the hard disc
FWIW, on our database loads at least, I find that whilst deadline tends to give the lowest single transaction rate, CFQ gives better overall performance (i.e. more transactions served) over a given time period. Anyone tried the CFQ, deadline and no-op schedulers on a solid state disc yet?
Re: (Score:2)