Hi,
Â*
Is there any advantage to one specific IO
scheduler (below) that may improve IO performance / throughput when running with
a round-robin failover policy?Â*Has anyone done testing with this ... and
willing to share results?
Â*
thanks,
Paul
Â*
Completely Fair Queuing—elevator=cfq (default)
Deadline—elevator=deadline
NOOP—elevator=noop
Anticipatory—elevator=as

Â*

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Hi Paul,

the device-mapper target itself doe not use any queue and so there is no scheduler used at all. Only the real devices that are used as paths will be using a scheduler. Whether there might be a performance gain by changing these, I do not know.


Stefan

2007/11/27, Paul Cote <paul.cote@incipient.com>:







Hi,
Â*
Is there any advantage to one specific IO
scheduler (below) that may improve IO performance / throughput when running with
a round-robin failover policy?Â*Has anyone done testing with this ... and
willing to share results?
Â*
thanks,
Paul
Â*
Completely Fair Queuing—elevator=cfq (default)
Deadline—elevator=deadline
NOOP—elevator=noop
Anticipatory—elevator=as

Â*


--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel


--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel