On Tue, Feb 12 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > I want to find out why it was done first and then test it. Leaving it out
> > > > will ensure it bugs me until I test it
> > >
> > > If you leave it out, you surely want to make sure that the other request
> > > init and re-init paths agree on the clustering for MO devices. Because
> > > they don't.
>
> No - I want to run a test set with an M/O drive before and after the change
> and see what it shows in real life. I suspect nothing much.
That completely ignores that there is a _bug_ there currently. There was
a reason I removed disabled clustering, you know... 2.4 before the
change oopses, 2.4.18-preX (forget when Marcelo took the patch) has it
fixed.
> > Now, disabling request merging for MO devices might make a whole lot
> > more sense. That might be worth while trying, and I'd be happy to give
> > you a patch to try that out instead.
>
> I don't think that should be required actually. The killer on M/O disks
> is seek time, and to an extent rotational latency (its 3 trips round a
> cheaper M/O disk to rewrite a sector). If anything clustering writes to
> the same track should be a big win.
You are probably right. Can't make pigs fly :-)
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:50 EST