RE: Linux, i/o scheduler and ASM
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:33:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9F15274DDC89C24387BE933E68BE3FD30211B4_at_MISOUT7MSGUSR9D.ITServices.sbc.com>
Thanks that was good feedback. Our concern is on heavily loaded systems to maintain expected performance.
From: K Gopalakrishnan [mailto:kaygopal_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:18 PM
To: CRISLER, JON A (ATTCORP)
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.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Mon Apr 18 2011 - 11:33:11 CDT