Re: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
- From: K Gopalakrishnan <kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: JC1706@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:17:47 -0500
Jon,
Played with scheduler a while ago on a storage benchmark, (don't have the
exact numbers handy) You will not see any noticeable difference during
normal workload. But with overloaded (or fully loaded) systems, deadline
scheduler works better than CFQ. The difference was in the range of 5-8%
IIRC.
-Gopal
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:51 AM, CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)
<JC1706@xxxxxxx>wrote:
> Has anybody played around with changing the Linux I/O scheduler when
> using ASM (11gR2) ? I am wondering if any performance differences are to be
> found in using CFQ vs. Deadline vs other options, especially in a large RAC
> / SAN environment. Right now we are using CFQ, and in my previous
> experiments on filesystems I did not get any noticeable difference in
> changing to deadline.
>
Other related posts:
