As listed, the choices are noop, anticipatory, deadline, and cfq.
Kernel gurus look away as I try to explain this, lest you risk dying a bit
(or a lot) on the inside
The default is CFQ which tries to separate IO requests by priority classes,
and then provides fair timeslices to each process w
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Scott James Remnant wrote on 06/11/08 22:44:
>> ...
>> I've always thought it would be interesting to be able to influence the
>> scheduler on a per process basis - and do that from the Window Manager.
>> ie. delibera
Olá Scott e a todos.
On Thursday 06 November 2008 22:44:17 Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Also you can just fiddle on a per-disk basis, e.g.:
> echo -n deadline > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
What other options are there, and in which cases can/should them be used?
Currenctly this is what I ha
Markus Hitter wrote:
> Am 06.11.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Dan Colish:
>
>> They're using very different gcc versions between the os's.
>
> Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
>
Quite a few GCC optimisations are for specific CPUs. 32bit ubuntu uses very
conservative opt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant wrote on 06/11/08 22:44:
>...
> I've always thought it would be interesting to be able to influence the
> scheduler on a per process basis - and do that from the Window Manager.
> ie. deliberately give the user's foreground process
I wonder how this discussion is able to drift so much away from the
actual subject on both ubuntu-devel and ubuntu-devel-discuss. Many
people do not want to believe results or just point out one or two of
them are meaningless (like NVIDIA graphics performance with closed
drivers is not that interes
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:03:19AM +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
> Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
Faster code? No, GCC doesn't rewrite code. Streamline the compiled
binary to make efficient use of system calls? Yes. Different GCC
versions can have dramatic effects o
Am 06.11.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Dan Colish:
> They're using very different gcc versions between the os's.
Well, newer gcc's are meant to produce faster code, aren't they?
MarKus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 20:41 +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> The disk IO performance decrease from Gutsy to Hardy is anything but
> anecdotal.
>
> This (
> http://groups.google.com/group/zumastor/browse_thread/thread/7e413960ddc22811#
>
> ) bug report in the Zumastor project has some (q
>>>"faster than Vista isn't hard, we want it to be faster than XP" because
>>>remember, that's what most people are running. Why would they switch to
>>>Ubuntu if it's going to make their machine slower?
I think performance is a very relative term. Slow for games can be great for
a database. I am
Quoting Bryce Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
>> releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
>> this can be seen as up to 50
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 14:38 -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
> > Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end.
>
> I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be
> faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our
> users well.
Yes, the response on /. to
> Anyway, it does look like linux wins in the end.
I do not believe that is a good thing; Just because Gnu/Linux can be
faster than windows vista doesn't automatically mean we are serving our
users well.
The good news always comes from the users directly who never complain
about slowness. When
I'm not convined those Phoronix test are really that accurate, especially
after reading this one:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_macosx&num=1
It looks like they are not really comparing apples to apples, especially
when it comes to java benchmarking. They're using very di
Whoops, I thought you were talking about the recent article about -intel
performance on x45 chips. But I see you're actually talking about an
earlier article about Ubuntu performance in general:
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13022
Note that in that article they looked only at the proprietar
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:58:51PM +0100, mr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
> releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
> this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
>
> I
2008/11/6 mr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi,
>
> According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
> releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
> this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
>
> I can confirm that th
Hi,
According to the recent benchmarking article by Phoronix, the previous two
releases of Ubuntu are significantly slower than Feisty Fawn. In some cases
this can be seen as up to 50% performance drop with certain desktop tasks.
I can confirm that this is true in that my girlfriends desktop used
18 matches
Mail list logo
