[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[dm-devel] Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller
- From: Andrea Righi <righi andrea gmail com>
- To: Hirokazu Takahashi <taka valinux co jp>
- Cc: xen-devel lists xensource com, containers lists linux-foundation org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, virtualization lists linux-foundation org, dm-devel redhat com, agk sourceware org, baramsori72 gmail com, Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida ap jp nec com>, dave linux vnet ibm com, ngupta google com, balbir linux vnet ibm com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:08:09 -0000
Andrea Righi wrote:
Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
I think guaranteeing the minimum I/O bandwidth is very important. In the
business site, especially in streaming service system, administrator requires
the functionality to satisfy QoS or performance of their service.
Of course, IO throttling is important, but, personally, I think guaranteeing
the minimum bandwidth is more important than limitation of maximum bandwidth
to satisfy the requirement in real business sites.
And I know Andrea’s io-throttle patch supports the latter case well and it is
But, the first case(guarantee the minimum bandwidth) is not supported in any
3. & 4. & 5. - I/O bandwidth shaping & General design aspects
The implementation of an I/O scheduling algorithm is to a certain extent
influenced by what we are trying to achieve in terms of I/O bandwidth
shaping, but, as discussed below, the required accuracy can determine
the layer where the I/O controller has to reside. Off the top of my
head, there are three basic operations we may want perform:
- I/O nice prioritization: ionice-like approach.
- Proportional bandwidth scheduling: each process/group of processes
has a weight that determines the share of bandwidth they receive.
- I/O limiting: set an upper limit to the bandwidth a group of tasks
Use a deadline-based IO scheduling could be an interesting path to be
explored as well, IMHO, to try to guarantee per-cgroup minimum bandwidth
Please note that the only thing we can do is to guarantee minimum
bandwidth requirement when there is contention for an IO resource, which
is precisely what a proportional bandwidth scheduler does. An I missing
Correct. Proportional bandwidth automatically allows to guarantee min
requirements (instead of IO limiting approach, that needs additional
mechanisms to achive this).
In any case there's no guarantee for a cgroup/application to sustain
i.e. 10MB/s on a certain device, but this is a hard problem anyway, and
the best we can do is to try to satisfy "soft" constraints.
Is there any plans to support it? and Is there any problems in implementing it?
I think if IO controller can support guaranteeing the minimum bandwidth and
work-conserving mode simultaneously, it more easily satisfies the requirement
of the business sites.
Additionally, I didn’t understand “Proportional bandwidth automatically allows
to guarantee min
requirements” and “soft constraints”.
Can you give me a advice about this ?
Thanks in advance.
I think this is what dm-ioband does.
Let's say you make two groups share the same disk, and give them
70% of the bandwidth the disk physically has and 30% respectively.
This means the former group is almost guaranteed to be able to use
70% of the bandwidth even when the latter one is issuing quite
a lot of I/O requests.
Yes, I know there exist head seek lags with traditional magnetic disks,
so it's important to improve the algorithm to reduce this overhead.
And I think it is also possible to add a new scheduling policy to
guarantee the minimum bandwidth. It might be cool if some group can
use guranteed bandwidths and the other share the rest on proportional
With IO limiting approach minimum requirements are supposed to be
guaranteed if the user configures a generic block device so that the sum
of the limits doesn't exceed the total IO bandwidth of that device. But,
in principle, there's nothing in "throttling" that guarantees "fairness"
among different cgroups doing IO on the same block devices, that means
there's nothing to guarantee minimum requirements (and this is the
reason because I liked the Satoshi's CFQ-cgroup approach together with
A more complicated issue is how to evaluate the total IO bandwidth of a
generic device. We can use some kind of averaging/prediction, but
basically it would be inaccurate due to the mechanic of disks (head
seeks, but also caching, buffering mechanisms implemented directly into
the device, etc.). It's a hard problem. And the same problem exists also
for proportional bandwidth as well, in terms of IO rate predictability I
BTW as I said in a previous email, an interesting path to be explored
IMHO could be to think in terms of IO time. So, look at the time an IO
request is issued to the drive, look at the time the request is served,
evaluate the difference and charge the consumed IO time to the
appropriate cgroup. Then dispatch IO requests in function of the
consumed IO time debts / credits, using for example a token-bucket
strategy. And probably the best place to implement the IO time
accounting is the elevator.
The only difference is that with proportional bandwidth you know that
(taking the same example reported by Hirokazu) with i.e. 10 similar IO
requests, 7 will be dispatched to the first cgroup and 3 to the other
cgroup. So, you don't need anything to guarantee "fairness", but it's
hard also for this case to evaluate the cost of the 7 IO requests
respect to the cost of the other 3 IO requests as seen by user
applications, that is the cost the users care about.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]