Re: elevator algorithm considered irrelevant

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:53:33 -0800


: Larry McVoy wrote:
: > I wanted to mention that back around 1990 or so I spent a bunch of
: > time trying improve performance by playing with the disk sort routine
: > (the elevator alg) in SunOS. I futzed around for several weeks before
: > realizing that it didn't much matter what I did. That was the insight.
:
: Base assumptions may have changed somewhat since then..
: Drive speeds are now faster, partitions are much larger,
: Linux is not SunOS (async vs. sync I/O), ext2fs is not ufs.

I don't mean to be argumentative but can you quantify any of those
changes? I'm somebody who lives and breathes disk drives, I can tell
you how they work down to fairly detailed levels, and while it is true
that the performance has changed, it is not true that the performance
curves have changed as far as I know.

In other words, the ratio of a 1/4 stroke seek over a 3/4 stroke seek has
stayed constant. The S shaped curve of seek performance as a function of
distance hasn't changed in years, probably hasn't changed substantially
since the day that they made it so that the head would settle on just
the right track.

: I once implemented "closest seek" and "2way-elevators" for
: the Linux IDE driver, and saw marked response improvements
: under heavy load.

Could you quantify that? Do you remember what was the load generator
and what was the difference in response time and what was the difference
in throughput? I'm not trying to argue, I'm just curious as to the
ballpark results. I can imagine that this is all in some dusty corner
of your mind but if you can take a swag at the numbers I'd be interested.

Thanks,

--lm

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/