On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:26, Patrick McLean wrote:
> Finally, the interactivity estimator seems to be quite a bit of code,
> which certain people have no real useful (in servers for example) and I
> would imagine that it does reduce throughput, which is not a big deal in
> desktops, but in a server environment it's not good, so maybe a
> CONFIG_INTERACTIVE_ESTIMATOR or something similar would be an idea to
> keep the server people happy, just have an option to completely get rid
> of the extra overhead of having a really nice interactivity estimator. I
> could be an idiot though, and I imagine that I will be needing some
> asbestos for saying this, but I thought I would voice my opinion.
In the past, I proposed to have at least 2 schedulers available (much
like we have for I/O schedulers): one for servers, which doesn't mess
with bonuses and interactivity too much and gives best throughput for
batch processing (OLTP and in general, non-interactive loads), and
another one for desktops or Terminal Servers.
Don't know if this is feasible, however.
-
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 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:38 EST