[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:20:07 +0200
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200510051618.44230.ak@suse.de>
References: <BAY110-F272BEC2E5C429160FB4068B4830@phx.gbl> <20051005084117.GF3511@suse.de> <4343DEFE.9010505@sgi.com> <200510051618.44230.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Oct 05 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 October 2005 16:11, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > That's exactly why the Linux ioprio stuff has been designed the way it
> > > is right now - it's not overengineered for something we cannot support
> > > anyways. The CFQ io priorities will work well enough for general use, if
> > > you are basing your business on GRIO it's a different game completely. I
> > > don't want to add kernel infrastructure for something that is very
> > > specialized, especially because the code to do so would be 10 times
> > > bigger and more complex that the current stuff..
> >
> > Jens, I didn't mean to imply that you -should- have done a GRIO-type
> > design (and I doubt that Steve did, either.)  My only point was that
> > GRIO and ioprio are two different IO control mechanisms.
> I suspect for most people they will be pretty much equivalent.

Indeed, only for the 'obscure' life-or-death type setups will there be a
real difference.

Jens Axboe

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>