[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:18:43 +0200
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4343DEFE.9010505@xxxxxxx>
References: <BAY110-F272BEC2E5C429160FB4068B4830@xxxxxxx> <20051005084117.GF3511@xxxxxxx> <4343DEFE.9010505@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.8.2
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.


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