On 10/4/19 1:48 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Il giorno 4 ott 2019, alle ore 19:21, Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> ha
scritto:
>
>
> Just checking this one point: On Fedora and Fedora CoreOS (assuming we don't
change
> any defaults) users won't need to do anything to "enable this boost".
Correct?
>
Thank you very much for this useful question; it helped me realize
that I didn't explain the main problem at all, sorry.
The answer to your question is yes and no. The 'yes' is because, BFQ
is already there, as you rightly point out.
The 'no' is the tricky part. The main issue is that BFQ cannot make a
disk reach a higher throughput than that requested by the workload.
Let me give a simple example. If the only process doing I/O on a disk
does a read of 1 MB every second, then the maximum possible throughput
that can be reached by the disk is 1 MB/s. A bad solution for
controlling I/O may cause throughput to be below 1 MB/s, but no
solution could go above 1 MB/s, simply because no more than that is
being requested.
So, if a user/sysadmin keeps disk bandwidths underutilized, because
this is their long-standing practice for guaranteeing bandwidth and
latency, and because they are not aware of what they can now do with
BFQ, then nothing changes for them, even if now I/O is scheduled by
BFQ.
I hope my concern is clearer now.
My interpretation of what you're saying is:
"BFQ is there now, but people will need to change their applications/workloads
to really take advantage of it.
Is that correct?
The goal of this topic is to spread the word, and offer help.
Thanks to you!