lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Regarding dm-ioband tests
From
Hi Balbir,

Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> [2009-09-08 12:01:19]:
>
> > I think there are some advantages to dm-ioband. That's why I post
> > dm-ioband to the mailing list.
> >
> > - dm-ioband supports not only proportional weight policy but also rate
> > limiting policy. Besides, new policies can be added to dm-ioband if
> > a user wants to control bandwidth by his or her own policy.
> > - The dm-ioband driver can be replaced without stopping the system by
> > using device-mapper's facility. It's easy to maintain.
> > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an
> > advantage.)
>
> But don't you need page_cgroup for IO tracking?

It is not necessary when controlling bandwidth on a per partition
basis or on a IO thread basis like Xen blkback kernel thread.

Here are configration examples.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/ioband/wiki/dm-ioband/man/examples

Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-08 07:07    [W:0.158 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site