The State of Linux IO Scheduling For the Desktop? 472
pinkeen writes "I've used Linux as my work & play OS for 5+ years. The one thing that constantly drives me mad is its IO scheduling. When I'm copying a large amount of data in the background, everything else slows down to a crawl while the CPU utilization stays at 1-2%. The process which does the actual copying is highly prioritized in terms of I/O. This is completely unacceptable for a desktop OS. I've heard about the efforts of Con Kolivas and his Brainfuck Scheduler, but it's unsupported now and probably incompatible with latest kernels. Is there any way to fix this? How do you deal with this? I have a feeling that if this issue was to be fixed, the whole desktop would become way more snappier, even if you're not doing any heavy IO in the background."
Update: 10/23 22:06 GMT by T : As reader ehntoo points out in the discussion below, contrary to the submitter's impression, "Con Kolivas is still actively working on BFS, it's not unsupported. He's even got a patch for 2.6.36, which was only released on the 20th. He's also got a patchset out that I use on all my desktops which includes a bunch of tweaks for desktop use." Thanks to ehntoo, and hat tip to Bill Huey.
Re:Perhaps you should... (Score:3, Funny)
Sidenote - What is up with this comment not showing up when I wasn't registered. That's stupid and annoying.
It did. [slashdot.org] Now who's stupid and annoying? I mean, besides me.
Re:have you tried ionice? (Score:4, Funny)
Unfortunately, due to the global recession, the only person who can currently afford to buy one is the Sultan of Brunei.
Re:It sucks I agree (Score:1, Funny)
Right because as we all know PORN is the only thing to keep secret.
Re:if i have many gigs of data to copy over somewh (Score:4, Funny)
I would definitely not let a monkey like you get near my computers if some intense file copy was going on and they wanted to start doing other things while that was going on, sure you can do it but that does not make it a prudent thing to do, and the file may copy over just fine, and it may lose a few bits without even reporting any errors and that can happen on any OS, BSD, Linux, Winders & etc...etc...etc...
You sir, are a perfect specimen of a BOFH. You only have a dim notion of what actually goes on inside those mysterious boxes that are unfortunately left under your care. And yet, by some curious accident of nature, you've been entrusted with root passwords for said boxes. You use phrases like "intense file copy" like they mean anything. You place every idiotic restriction that you can think of on the users of said boxes (who, incidentally, are almost always smarter and more qualified than you in whatever field of work they're in) by using words like "prudent" and "safety"... or god forbid... "security". You actually think that because I run a second program along with your "intense" copy, it can result in loss of "a few bits without even reporting any errors" due to what ? The magical fairies that dance inside those little chips getting angry ? Tired ? Can you do everybody a favor and reduce the amount of utter nonsense emanating out of that tiny, befuddled brain ?
Re:if i have many gigs of data to copy over somewh (Score:3, Funny)
I wanted to write a lengthy rebuttal here explaining how computers work, but my computer is busy with a seriously *intense* copy right now so I don't want to chance it.
Re:What am I doing wrong? (Score:3, Funny)
CowboyNeal came to my house yesterday and sat on the sofa and had a beer like it was just a basic day.
He even said I should work on my interior decoration - "Those empty white walls aren't very pretty." It sucked, so don't come telling me Slashdot hasn't violated my privacy. :)