Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I highlighted a few cases where AS went really wrong during the presentation, like on really large RAID 0 arrays, but in general (referring back to slides) AS trailed other schedulers by 5-10% on ext3, but had real trouble with XFS, losing by as much as %145 on 5disk raid5 system for a mix of workloads. Perhaps this is the piece you remember.
- The effects of tcq on AS are much less disastrous than I thought they> were. Do I have the wrong workload? Memory fails me. Or did we fix the
> anticipatory scheduler?
>
>
Yes, we did fix it ;)
Quite a long time ago, so maybe you are thinking of something else
(I haven't been able to work it out).
Steve Pratt's ols2004 presentation made AS look pretty bad. However the
numbers in the proceedings
(http://www.finux.org/proceedings/LinuxSymposium2004_V2.pdf) are much less
stark.
Steve, what's up with that? The slides which you talked to had some awful
numbers. Was it the same set of tests?