RE: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:24:46 -0400
Message-ID: <1B861F1ABE40A84AA92AD585B20C558B270AD5489A_at_EX7T2-CV06.TDBFG.COM>
Same here under a similar scenario - about 10% improvement on a load of 1 terabyte worth of data.
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of K Gopalakrishnan Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:18 PM
To: JC1706_at_att.com
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
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_at_att.com<mailto:JC1706_at_att.com>> 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.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Mon Apr 18 2011 - 11:24:46 CDT