RE: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
- From: "CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)" <JC1706@xxxxxxx>
- To: K Gopalakrishnan <kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:33:11 +0000
Thanks that was good feedback. Our concern is on heavily loaded systems to
maintain expected performance.
From: K Gopalakrishnan [mailto:kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:18 PM
To: CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)
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.
Other related posts:
