|Subject:||noop or deadline on an SSD?|
|From:||Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:38:59 +0100|
|Dkim-signature:||v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=tU5BqWVIU/eXuDcYSO6k+LjtPmu9spG5RHEjHBQ0qZ0=; b=VD/Kvx8OFrfcsuGvi4YT0Up2dAXGV2A5D4DQohYr/K3iccfyK+jbATB/6vhtf6jTqY RTeBUm8BU6pEJwpNv/50Ji9aYCXkPJEpQO5AgN6wh7bkprim9mj3WOLpsRiSo7zoeXmT ce04XaevKJni3pj0Y4jpaFTbLbTYpet87J8lHmh15z7PfJn1YOxdRD3HWSh6KR7UOOBk 8T1qFDWTBpI2U4GtgvzKSuoGLsxUpR0HH8OfsVTdYwnryOo07Zk51JVMgfq8fulj/dEb ZpeERPePqg8uSCK1xDg9FHNWJaPm28qAoMIOOhiIdp5fMiFgV0rjTQYVRrEOj2cQdRaJ FLMA==|
I recently moved my system to an SSD.
I decided to do what the XFS FAQ says (http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_I_want_to_tune_my_XFS_filesystems_for_.3Csomething.3E) and I used all the defaults for creating the new XFS file systems.
However the paragraph above also reads: "As of kernel 3.2.12, the default i/o scheduler, CFQ, will defeat much of the parallelization in XFS."
Ok, I also read that with an SSD I should be using noop or deadline. And which one of these would perform better with XFS with an SSD? And while I'm at it, which one would be best for a mechanical drive?
Thanks in advance.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH] xfs: shutdown filesystem if xfs_perag_get fails, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Date:||[PATCH V2] xfstests: remove recursive include in filter.btrfs, Eric Sandeen|
|Previous by Thread:||[PATCH] xfs: shutdown filesystem if xfs_perag_get fails, Mark Tinguely|
|Next by Thread:||Re: noop or deadline on an SSD?, Stan Hoeppner|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|