On 04/09/2007 03:27 PM, Andreas Mohr wrote:
And I really don't see much difference whatsoever to the I/O scheduler area: some people want predictable latency, while others want maximum throughput or fastest operation for seek-less flash devices (noop). Hardware varies similarly greatly has well: Some people have huge disk arrays or NAS, others have a single flash disk. Some people have a decaying UP machine, others have huge SMP farms.
I do agree, and yes, I/O scheduling seems to not have suffered from the choice although I must say I'm not sure how much use each I/O scheduler individualy sees.
If one CPU scheduler can be good enough then it would better to just have that one, but well, yes, maybe it can't. I certainly believe any one scheduler can't avoid breaking down onder some condition. Demand is just too varied.
I find it interesting that you see SD as a server scheduler and I guess deterministic behaviour does point in that direction somewhat. I would be enabling it on the desktop though, which probably is _some_ argument on having multiple schedulers.
Rene. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
