> Il giorno 13 dic 2018, alle ore 18:34, stan ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:46:30 +0100
> Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>>> Il giorno 13 dic 2018, alle ore 17:41, stan
>>> ha scritto:
>>>
>
>> You don't have bfq for a co
> Il giorno 13 dic 2018, alle ore 17:53, stan ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:42:24 +0100
> Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> To test the behavior of your system, why don't you check, e.g., how
>> long it takes to start an application while there is som
> Il giorno 13 dic 2018, alle ore 17:41, stan ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:42:24 +0100
> Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> To test the behavior of your system, why don't you check, e.g., how
>> long it takes to start an application while there is som
> Il giorno 13 dic 2018, alle ore 17:17, stan ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:42:24 +0100
> Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> To test the behavior of your system, why don't you check, e.g., how
>> long it takes to start an application while there is som
> Il giorno 12 dic 2018, alle ore 22:41, stan ha
> scritto:
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:07:49 -0500
> Jeff Moyer wrote:
>
> Thanks for your insight. Doesn't look good for my use of BFQ.
>
>> Note that you can change the current I/O scheduler for any block
>> device by echo-ing into /sys/blo
Vivek Goyal ha scritto:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:44:21PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2010 01:58 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have been working for a few years (with Fabio Checconi) on a disk
>>> scheduler providing
Hi,
I have been working for a few years (with Fabio Checconi) on a disk
scheduler providing definitely lower latencies than cfq, as well as a
higher throughput with most of the test workloads we used (or the same
throughput as cfq with the other workloads). We named this scheduler
bfq (budget fair
