On Sunday 16 December 2007, forgottenwizard wrote: > On 18:36 Sun 16 Dec , Mick wrote: > > On Saturday 15 December 2007, forgottenwizard wrote: > > > On 15:27 Thu 13 Dec , Jason Carson wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > Where in the kernel config (make menuconfig) do I find the choice for > > > > schedulers. The one I am currently using is "Anticipatory". What is > > > > the newest and latest scheduler for 2.6.23? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Jason Carson > > > > > > > > -- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > > Like someone else mentioned, you can switch the sched on the fly, and > > > quite easily. From what I have seen myself: > > > > > > Anticipatory seems to be, at times, faster than deadline, but not by > > > much. It tries to predict what will be needed next, where as deadline > > > makes reads/writes based on which will be the fastest (recomended for > > > databases and such iirc). > > > > > > In my experiance, CFQ has always been the slowest. It gives everything > > > even time, and seems to cause alot more head movement than the other > > > two, which is a pain. > > > > > > Best bet is to compile them all in, and switch them out to see what > > > works best. For me that seems to be deadline (btw, I am running a > > > desktop), but testing would be the best thing. > > > > Is testing a matter of how 'it feels' to use the desktop type-of-thing, > > or is it a matter of trying to start/run multiple apps against a > > stop-watch? > > > > I have used anticipatory and CFQ on my laptop and I am not sure that I > > can tell the difference . . . > > -- > > Regards, > > Mick > > I go by how things feel. I know about how long most programs take to > start up, and how everything feels. > > Of course, you can also figure into all this I have mpd running, fetchmail > running every few minutes, plus other various programs running that are > going to take up more disk I/O than what might be expected from a > laptop. > > From what I've been able to tell, deadline has always worked best for > me, since not many of the reads I have take very long to start off with > (outside of the occasional movie). > > Course, there is also how much you have loaded into RAM and cache that > would affect all this (which I bet you have more RAM than I do), so...
OK then, I have been using CFQ for the last few days and it 'feels' slower (when e.g. I fire up Kmail, Opera and aterm in quick succession) relative to anticipatory which I was using before. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
