Re: Prioritized I/O

(no name) ((no email))
16 Aug 1999 19:18:35 -0400


>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes:
> Exactly! I know it can seem "nice" that a FS could prioritise access,
> but is it really worth the drama? Dedicating a disc to a high priority
> task seems much simpler and robust.

I personally couldn't care less about true real-time behavior, but
there is something to be said for some kind of I/O (and memory) priority (set
dynamically) in order to prevent a thrashing monster from making the machine
unuseable.
Problem is, I can't seem to find the cool algorithm that would automatically
notice such a situation and would correctly reduce the resident-set-size and
I/O use of such a monster (or alternatively that would automatically notice
which processes should be provided with a "guaranteed" amount of ram and I/O).

Stefan

-
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/