Subject: Re: NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/05/2003 08:52:18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Dec 5, 2003, at 7:18 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> One thing I'm not so sure about is using a FCFS queue for the "time
> sensitive" requests. I think that the average latency for requests
> that queue is probably significantly increased by using FCFS rather
> the increasing-block-number sort, because we lose the benefit of
> readahead, which will be particularly severe if the queues are long.
> sort seems particularly likely to be beneficial given the rather large
> number of requests we take from the queues in a "burst" and the
> likelihood that we'd get a lot of track cache hits.
Yah, I agree with this analysis.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----