Linux I/O schedulers benchmarked - anticipatory vs CFQ vs deadline vs noop

Conclusions

I found very instructive to play with the Linux I/O schedulers.

While in many tests they show similar results, it really seems that CFQ and deadline have an edge over the old, legacy anticipatory scheduler.

In the end,the move to CFQ (the standard scheduler in recent kernels) was a sensible one. Anyone wanting to squeeze a little more performance from its disk subsystem can either fine-tune the CFQ scheduler or use the deadline one. For example, some interesting consideration can be found here.

Feel free to discuss this article with me writing at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Have a nice day!

• KVM Windows virtual machines and ACPI unattended shutdown: a recap
• Dell DSU and previous OMSA versions
• ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, EXT4 and LVM with KVM – a storage performance comparison
• LVM thin volume explained
• Joomla 3.3, CentOS 6 and PHP version - putting all together
• Linux compressors comparison on CentOS 6.5 x86-64: lzo vs lz4 vs gzip vs bzip2 vs lzma