Hi,
Maybe some of you have been hearing lately about a problem with laptop's hard
disk drives being killed by *insert Linux distro here* [1]
The problem comes from a very high rate of load/unload cycles of the heads
that reaches the 300.000-600.000 limit in 2-3 years (with smartmontools it
can
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > P.S: As a second thought, a fair scheduler could behave really good
> > in other scenarios, like a server running a busy forum on apache
> > +mysql+php. Besides, this
El Saturday 23 June 2007 18:35:18 Kyle Moffett escribió:
> If you want the kernel to
> treat one job or the other as more important then you must *TELL* it
> that, end of story.
Yes, that makes sense now that it's been explained to me conveniently. As long
as a normal user is not left alone with
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> But the fact is, the "interactivity estimator" is too fragile, and when
> it fails it can do much damage.
>
>
> Fair scheduler instead:
> - are robust
> - provide consistent behaviour
> - provide good interactivity within the bounds
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Tom Spink wrote:
> Alberto,
>
> If you're feeling adventurous, grab the latest kernel and patch it
> with Ingo's scheduler: CFS.
>
> You may be pleasantly surprised.
Thanks, I might if I have to courage to patch and compile my own kernel :)
However, I'd also need to chan
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:45:30PM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > Ok, so if I understand correctly, the problem I had in my simple test
> > will be solved by distributions once a fair scheduler goes into mainline?
>
> No,
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > But the bottom line is that on a desktop, tasks should receive
> > different -unfair- amounts of CPU time to work correctly. The "fair"
> > concept still looks wrong to me.
>
> "fair" means what it means : stop starving some tasks for no apparent
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:01:02AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > I see. So you mean that in 90% of the cases the mainline scheduler
> > behaves better than fair schedulers, but when its "logic" fails it
> > b
Thanks for your thoughts.
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:07:15 +0200
>
> Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > My conclusion is that SD behaves as expected: it's more fair. But for a
> > desktop, shouldn't an "intel
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > Ok, so what will a fair scheduler do in this case? It is my
> > understanding that it would give 50% CPU to each task, resulting in
> > the video dropping frames. Is
Hi,
First I'd like to say I'm not a programmer or even a geek, just a normal user,
so my question might be very basic or even stupid. If so, please excuse me.
I've been reading about CFS and SD schedulers here on the list and my basic
understanding is that they try to improve interactivity by b
11 matches
Mail list logo
