Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

Paingiver · 2015-09-07 14:48:33

I changed the default scheduler to noop in stock kernel because it is suggested to work better with SSD.

Now i am considering to use Linux-ck kernel with Atom specific optimization. Will Linux-CK kernel run better than stock kernel + noop?

progandy · 2015-09-07 14:50:50

Try it. Linux-ck provides noop, deadline, cfq, and bfq as i/o schedulers.

losko · 2015-09-07 16:53:07

Yes. it should, even if Con Kolivas, the father of BFS "lacks of time and enthusiasm" recently...
Graysky (the linux-ck mantainer) has a lot of enthusiasm instead

graysky · 2015-09-07 18:21:17

losko wrote:

Yes. it should, even if Con Kolivas, the father of BFS "lacks of time and enthusiasm" recently...
Graysky (the linux-ck mantainer) has a lot of enthusiasm instead

I am an enthusiasm power house

CK doesn't lack enthusiasm, just time. He will get around to syncing up 4.2 with ck1. I have been keeping track of the time it takes. For the last few:

4.1 --> 41 days (22-June-2015 - 02-Aug-2015)
4.0 --> 4 days (12-Apr-2015 - 16-Apr-2015)
3.19 --> 18 days (09-Feb-2015 - 27-Feb-2015)
3.18 --> 4 days (07-Dec-2014 - 11-Dec-2014)

losko · 2015-09-07 19:03:45

@graysky: sadly, these are his words from this post

@Paingiver: linux-ck doesn't conflict with standard kernel, you can have both.
Don't forget to enable noop scheduler.

Last edited by losko (2015-09-07 19:08:47)

Paingiver · 2015-09-07 22:11:43

graysky wrote:

losko wrote:
Yes. it should, even if Con Kolivas, the father of BFS "lacks of time and enthusiasm" recently...
Graysky (the linux-ck mantainer) has a lot of enthusiasm instead
I am an enthusiasm power house
CK doesn't lack enthusiasm, just time. He will get around to syncing up 4.2 with ck1. I have been keeping track of the time it takes. For the last few:
4.1 --> 41 days (22-June-2015 - 02-Aug-2015)
4.0 --> 4 days (12-Apr-2015 - 16-Apr-2015)
3.19 --> 18 days (09-Feb-2015 - 27-Feb-2015)
3.18 --> 4 days (07-Dec-2014 - 11-Dec-2014)

So...Graysky what is your idea? Should i use BFS or NOOP. And should i also enable BFQ?

kozaki · 2015-09-08 11:21:27

I (and maybe Graysky) don't have/know your hardware, setup nor your expectations. Why don't you try both, benchmark and tell us about your best self-found solution?
From the wiki:

It is possible to change the scheduler at runtime and even to use different schedulers for separate storage devices at the same time. See SSD IO scheduler for commands and examples.

Paingiver · 2015-09-08 12:07:05

kozaki wrote:

I (and maybe Graysky) don't have/know your hardware, setup nor your expectations. Why don't you try both, benchmark and tell us about your best self-found solution?
From the wiki:
It is possible to change the scheduler at runtime and even to use different schedulers for separate storage devices at the same time. See SSD IO scheduler for commands and examples.

I will try thanks. By the way my computer:

ASUS 1215N EEEPC NETBOOK
Intel Atom CPU D525 @ 1.80 GHZ
(2 + 4) GB DDR3 1333 MHZ
Samsung EVO 120 GB SSD
ArchLinux 64-bit

graysky · 2015-09-08 12:11:55

losko wrote:

@graysky: sadly, these are his words from this post .

That's a oneliner and kinda old. Ck1 keeps rolling out.

Try each scheduler and benchmark them to see if any provides you with a reason to use it over the others. Low power hardware is notoriously slow by design.

Paingiver · 2015-09-08 13:14:05

graysky wrote:

losko wrote:
@graysky: sadly, these are his words from this post .
That's a oneliner and kinda old. Ck1 keeps rolling out.
Try each scheduler and benchmark them to see if any provides you with a reason to use it over the others. Low power hardware is notoriously slow by design.

Thanks. Though this machine is low hardware it performs very well with SSD and optimized ArchLinux + OpenBox. I guess it will be much more good with ck-atom.

Do you consider adding bbswitch-ck to your repo?

And one more thing. Do you plan to change the Godaddy?

Edit: Wrong host name.

Last edited by Paingiver (2015-09-08 13:37:03)

ooo · 2015-09-08 13:17:03

Paingiver wrote:

Should i use BFS or NOOP. And should i also enable BFQ?

you should understand the difference between IO schedulers (e.g. BFQ and NOOP etc) and CPU shedulers (BFS).

as others have already said, you should figure out which one works best with your hardware and user scenario. For example BFS is designed for low latency, but with some cases it may not perform any better or could even be slower than vanilla kernel.

Paingiver · 2015-09-08 13:57:08

Now i've completed the install and i can only say: Wow! Just wow!

I am using BFS and BFQ with ck-atom.

Before: The machine was in good shape but was very slow in news sites especially the ones with a lot of images and content. (like the very very bulky milliyet.com.tr)

After: Now it is flying! Thanks to the programmers of these patches and thanks to you graysky for providing us an easy way of installing these patches!

Now i can't wait to install profile-sync-daemon. My extra 4 gb ram (currently only default 2 gb ram) is on the way and after i got that i will configure the psd immediately for even greater speed.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-09-07 14:48:33

Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#2 2015-09-07 14:50:50

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#3 2015-09-07 16:53:07

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#4 2015-09-07 18:21:17

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#5 2015-09-07 19:03:45

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#6 2015-09-07 22:11:43

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#7 2015-09-08 11:21:27

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#8 2015-09-08 12:07:05

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#9 2015-09-08 12:11:55

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#10 2015-09-08 13:14:05

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#11 2015-09-08 13:17:03

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

#12 2015-09-08 13:57:08

Re: Linux-ck vs Linux with Atom CPU + SSD

Board footer