Talk:Solid State Drives
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
- CFQ has some optimizations for SSDs and if it detects a non-rotational
- media which can support higher queue depth (multiple requests at in
- flight at a time), then it cuts down on idling of individual queues and
- all the queues move to sync-noidle tree and only tree idle remains. This
- tree idling provides isolation with buffered write queues on async tree.
- ushi 2013, November 03
What about F2FS?
In the Choice of Filesystem section, isn't it time to include some information about F2FS since Linux Kernel 3.8 Includes F2FS File System for Solid State Storage
- Perhaps, but after examining this performance comparison by Phoronix, you have to ask if the (slight) performance advantage of F2FS outweighs the stability and support of ext4.
- Might the article become more bloated and confusing for little or no real advantage ? Kal (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)