RE: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
- From: "Amaral, Rui" <Rui.Amaral@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx'" <kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx>, "JC1706@xxxxxxx" <JC1706@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:24:46 -0400
Same here under a similar scenario - about 10% improvement on a load of 1
terabyte worth of data.
________________________________
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of K Gopalakrishnan
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:18 PM
To: JC1706@xxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
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<mailto: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.
NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. Unauthorized
use/disclosure prohibited. If received in error, please go to www.td.com/legal
for instructions.
AVIS : Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié.
Utilisation/divulgation interdites sans permission. Si reçu par erreur, prière
d'aller au www.td.com/francais/avis_juridique pour des instructions.
Other related posts:
