Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-04-13 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Apr 12 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM > > > On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM > > > > > No such promise was

RE: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-04-12 Thread Chen, Kenneth W
Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:13 PM > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM > > On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM > > > > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically > > > >

RE: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-04-05 Thread Chen, Kenneth W
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:54 AM > On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM > > > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically > > > nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the seman

Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-04-05 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM > > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically > > nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics > > of block layer commands just for the hell of it. >

Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > > >>The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing > >>workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before > >>sending it down, the I/O presented to th

Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Bill Davidsen
Jens Axboe wrote: On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not merge-able anymore. Since I/O are a

RE: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Chen, Kenneth W
Jens Axboe wrote on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:04 PM > No such promise was ever made, noop just means it does 'basically > nothing'. It never meant FIFO in anyway, we cannot break the semantics > of block layer commands just for the hell of it. Acknowledged and understood, will try your patch shor

Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Mar 29 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing > > workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before > > sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually

RE: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Chen, Kenneth W
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing > workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before > sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not > merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also random

Re: [patch] new fifo I/O elevator that really does nothing at all

2005-03-29 Thread Jens Axboe
On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > The noop elevator is still too fat for db transaction processing > workload. Since the db application already merged all blocks before > sending it down, the I/O presented to the elevator are actually not > merge-able anymore. Since I/O are also random