Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.12 I/O Scheduler Tests With A HDD & SSD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 4.12 I/O Scheduler Tests With A HDD & SSD

    Phoronix: Linux 4.12 I/O Scheduler Tests With A HDD & SSD

    Earlier in the Linux 4.12 cycle I delivered a number of I/O scheduler benchmarks from a solid-state drive while for this article are some fresh I/O scheduler tests using a slower SSD as well as a conventional HDD. Schedulers tested were CFQ, Noop, deadline, MQ None, MQ Kyber, MQ BFQ, and MQ Deadline.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Looks like BFQ is the best for those who dont want to wait for disk operations. e.g. desktop users.

    Comment


    • #3
      Huh. I knew BFQ was latency-oriented but I did not expect it to be that bad at throughput.

      Perhaps something about multi-queue mode not being handled properly? I would really like an explanation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Where is the CFQ result on the last graph (the postgres benchmark) ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Shnatsel View Post
          Huh. I knew BFQ was latency-oriented but I did not expect it to be that bad at throughput.

          Perhaps something about multi-queue mode not being handled properly? I would really like an explanation.
          If you are constantly context switching then you will suffer in terms of total work throughput - but you may appease some managers (wait, are we still talking about schedulers here?)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Shnatsel View Post
            Huh. I knew BFQ was latency-oriented but I did not expect it to be that bad at throughput.

            Perhaps something about multi-queue mode not being handled properly? I would really like an explanation.
            Or there was some other application(s) which BFQ gave higher priority during the tests.

            This sounds kinda strange though, in my tests I didn't get this massive performance hits. Although I did much more mundane things, without the test suite.

            Comment


            • #7
              also blk-mq seems to have a bug that hurts anything multiqueue

              Comment


              • #8
                Michael This probably comes often when people test BFQ, but can you try running the tests with the low_latency parameter disabled?

                Comment


                • #9
                  What's up with IOzone graph? Since when is SSD slower than HDD?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fry-kun View Post
                    What's up with IOzone graph? Since when is SSD slower than HDD?
                    didn't notice, WTF IMPOSIBURU!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X