lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] range-bw: Another I/O scheduling policy of dm-ioband supporting the predicable I/O bandwidth (range bandwidth)
From
Hi Ryo Tsuruta,

2009/4/24 Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp>:
> Hi Dong-Jae,
>
>> range-bw is based on newest version of dm-ioband, bio-cgroup V7(4
>> patch files), dm-ioband-V1.10.3(1 patch file) and these can be
>> referred in
>> http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/
>> http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/bio-cgroup/
>> and the below range-bw patch file(dm-ioband-rangebw-1.10.3.patch)
>> including Ryo’s patch set is also referred in:
>> http://www.corsetproject.net/browser/corset_source_code/resource_controllers/disk_controller/Range-BW-for-dmioband-V1.10.3
>> You have to apply this(dm-ioband-rangebw-1.10.3.patch) patch file
>> after applying dm-ioband and bio-cgroup patches.
>>
>> The released range-bw may have some problems and improper code
>> although I try to test heavily. It is first release ^^
>> And it is required to reduce the overhead of I/O scheduling and to
>> optimize the source code.
>> Any comments or advices is welcome
>>
>> Ryo Tsuruta, Can you check this patch file ?
>> for convenience, patch file is attached in this mail.
>
> I took a quick look at your patch. It seems to be no problem for
> existing dm-ioband code, but I would suggest you that you had better
> use checkpatch.pl to check for your coding style.
> The patch could be applied and compiled successfully. I did a simple
> test, running fio on each cgroup in 30 seconds simultaneously, and got
> the following results.
>
>               w/o range-bw     w/ range-bw (min&max-bw settings)
> cgroup1          331KB/s             102KB/s (100KB)
> cgroup2          331KB/s             196KB/s (200KB)
>
> Do you have any benchmark resutls? I'd be very interested to see it.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryo Tsuruta
>

Thank you for your comments about range-bw
and your recommendation of checkpatch.pl seems to be useful for me.

I wonder your test configuration and environment.
Your result is some strange for me, because I didn't use the testing tool, fio.
I have used xdd, bonnie++ and tiobench during the test.

So, I will try to evaluate range-bw using fio, to do that, I need to
know your configuration and basic environment in briefly
if it don't bother you, can you give me the information?

and I attached the result of basic evaluation of range-bw using xdd
6.5.(Test Result for range-bw_english.pdf)
it was performed to evaluate the basic functionalities in one process per group.

actually, more evaluation is need in specfic envinronment like as
massive I/O by huge processes in each group.
and it is going on now
--
Best Regards,
Dong-Jae Kang
[unhandled content-type:application/pdf]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-27 11:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site