From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751196AbWFLRiV (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:38:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750803AbWFLRiV (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:38:21 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.204]:39314 "EHLO wx-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750752AbWFLRiT (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:38:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=F1CFROQcuoO+rkTTmyKftqkq8jQrwfNNCWyCq2ptv+7tcSjc5A55C8XXL9ipfjHIg5IpHWZmx7aqiOkLUZWsMwnHHrqQBPAjfI1okOW4tt0gBphtvl8Lamapeorm5bd+5gQ4M0FEuhVVft6uNoIo+gtKEn98p15eGL+n8l6YX8E= Message-ID: <4745278c0606121038y7fcdab2q33a9065e9071938b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:38:19 -0400 From: "Vishal Patil" To: "Jens Axboe" Subject: Re: CSCAN vs CFQ I/O scheduler benchmark results Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Jan Engelhardt" In-Reply-To: <20060612064136.GB4420@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4745278c0606091230g1cff8514vc6ad154acb62e341@mail.gmail.com> <4745278c0606091915n3ed7563do505664c4f8070f81@mail.gmail.com> <20060611185854.GF13556@suse.de> <4745278c0606111647g7ca1392bjb46936f69d6b668d@mail.gmail.com> <20060612064136.GB4420@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Could you let me know what tests would be fair to make comparsion between the I/O schedulers? Thanks. - Vishal