Difference between revisions of "Talk:Solid State Drives"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Remove closed discussions.)
(Alignment information)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
::It seems that the cfq scheduler already knows what to do when SSD is detected, so there is no use to change it.
 
::It seems that the cfq scheduler already knows what to do when SSD is detected, so there is no use to change it.
 
::[[User:raymondcal|raymondcal]] 2012, may 29
 
::[[User:raymondcal|raymondcal]] 2012, may 29
 +
 +
== Alignment ==
 +
 +
The information about alignment is missing
 +
[[User:Juen|Juen]] ([[User talk:Juen|talk]]) 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:28, 20 January 2013

DONT USE NOOP

The noop scheduler will perform slow but as a result it will greatly frees up CPU cycles. This in the real world will not increase the speed of your read/writes compared to CFS but instead consume less CPU resources. You can benchmark the deadline scheduler which MAY increase performance in some circumstances. By real world benchmarks, I mean anything but hdparm.

Interesting assertion... do you have any data or a source to back it up?
Graysky 17:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
It seems that the cfq scheduler already knows what to do when SSD is detected, so there is no use to change it.
raymondcal 2012, may 29

Alignment

The information about alignment is missing Juen (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)