The deadline recommendation was for early el4 kernels that had a bug in cfq. That bug was fixed years ago.
I am unsure how using noop in guest will trigger starvation. Not that I am recommending it. I have not thought about this much. On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Brian Kroth <bpkr...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://lonesysadmin.net/2008/02/21/elevatornoop/ > > I ran across this recently which describes, when operating in a > virtual > environment with shared storage, how to try and let the storage and > hypervisor deal with arranging disk write operations in a more > globally > optimal way rather than having all the guests try to do it and muck it > up. > > However, this is contrary to ocfs2 recommendation of using the > deadline > elevator. > > I'm just wondering if you have any comments one way or the other? > > My concern would be that while noop might make things globally optimal > it would still allow starvation in a single guest which might lead to > ocfs2 fencing. > > Thanks, > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
