Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>Large directories tend to be spread all around the disk anyway. And I've
>never explicitly tested for any problems which the loss of readahead might
>have caused ext2. Nor have I tested inode table readahead. Guess I should.
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>
readahead seems to be less effective for non-sequential objects. Or at
least, you don't get the order of magnitude benefit from doing only one
seek, you only get the better elevator scheduling from having more
things in the elevator, which isn't such a big gain.
For the spectators of the thread, one of the things most of us learn
from experience about readahead is that there has to be something else
trying to interject seeks into your workload for readahead to make a big
difference, otherwise a modern disk drive (meaning, not 30 or so years
old) is going to optimize it for you anyway using its track cache.
-- Hans- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:26 EST