Subject: Re: NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chuck Silvers <email@example.com>
Date: 12/01/2003 09:13:45
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:32:43AM +0100, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:33:47AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2003, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > >has anyone had any problems with NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY lately?
> > >is there consensus on whether or not this is ready to become the
> > >default?
> > I think the consensus is that it's stable, but I heard that it can have
> > some pretty horrible performance effects with some file systems if
> > they're exported by NFS.
> As it seems to be stable the comment 'Use it with caution...' should be
> removed from the config files.
> This should never become the default. It works well on one-user, one-disk
> desktop machines. The interactive processes are more responsive while
> big files are written (taking a CD image for example).
> I don't think it runs well on multi-user, multi-disk servers. As I don't
> have this class of machines I cannot test it.
if you haven't tested such a configuration, why do you think it doesn't
run well? can you give some details on what test I could run with what
configuration to expose such problems?