I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
* IO Schedulers
*
Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
Deadline I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_DEADLINE) [Y/n/m/?] y
CFQ I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_CFQ) [Y/n/m/?] y
Default I/O scheduler
> 1. Anticipatory (DEFAULT_AS) (NEW)
2. Deadline (DEFAULT_DEADLINE) (NEW)
3. CFQ (DEFAULT_CFQ) (NEW)
4. No-op (DEFAULT_NOOP) (NEW)
choice[1-4?]: ?

Select the I/O scheduler which will be used by default for all
block devices.

Default I/O scheduler
> 1. Anticipatory (DEFAULT_AS) (NEW)
2. Deadline (DEFAULT_DEADLINE) (NEW)
3. CFQ (DEFAULT_CFQ) (NEW)
4. No-op (DEFAULT_NOOP) (NEW)
choice[1-4?]:

TYIA.
--
dw

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:

> I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
> Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
> * IO Schedulers
> *
> Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
> [...]

This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.

I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
create a leaner kernel.

HTH
Sumo

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
>> Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
>> * IO Schedulers
>> *
>> Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
>> [...]
>
> This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
> think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
> seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
>
> I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
> create a leaner kernel.
>
> HTH
> Sumo
TY for your help and your email also. I am trying again, so you know, and
you were quite right about the xtables going unnoticed, and thus not even
prompting a whole bunch of things.
--
dw

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:56:37 -0400, linxlvr wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
>>> Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
>>> * IO Schedulers
>>> *
>>> Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
>> think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
>> seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
>>
>> I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
>> create a leaner kernel.
>>
>> HTH
>> Sumo
> TY for your help and your email also. I am trying again, so you know, and
> you were quite right about the xtables going unnoticed, and thus not even
> prompting a whole bunch of things.

Well, the firewall works, but no programs using internet have access. Try
try again. :-)
--
dw

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 03:15:03 +0000, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0400, linxlvr wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if someone could suggest what I should select.
>> Compiling kernel 2/6/16, debian Sarge 3.1
>> * IO Schedulers
>> *
>> Anticipatory I/O scheduler (IOSCHED_AS) [Y/n/m/?] y
>> [...]
>
> This is the one. Since it's the default, I guess the kernel developers
> think that it's the best overall for most people. I'm using it, and it
> seems to *double* disk performance (over 2.4.x) at times.
>
> I'm considering recompiling the kernel without the other I/O schedulers to
> create a leaner kernel.
>
> HTH
> Sumo

Thanks for the second email, that finally resolved enough of my issues to
make me happy. Tomorrow, the sound card! :-)
--
dw