[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] dm-mpath: dynamic load balancers
- From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda ct jp nec com>
- To: device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>
- Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk redhat com>, stefan bader canonical com, linux-scsi vger kernel org
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] dm-mpath: dynamic load balancers
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:03:08 +0900
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the comment.
On 01/30/2009 03:12 AM +0900, Mike Christie wrote:
> Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hi Alasdair,
>>
>> On 01/29/2009 12:37 AM +0900, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:38AM -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>>>> The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
>>>> to request-based dm-multipath:
>>>> o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
>>>> o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.
>>>
>>> Could we have separate Kconfig options to select them?
>>
>> Sure.
>> I posted the new one rebased on top of 2.6.29-rc2:
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00183.html
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00186.html
>>
>
> For the Kconfig help, is there something we could add to help people
> know when to choose one or the other? Sort of like how the block layer
> io scheduler (block/Kconfig.iosched) says one might be helpful for
> desktops and one is useful for data bses?
That's a good idea, but I don't have much information about that now.
To make such guide-line, we probably need lots of feedbacks from users.
(e.g. That may also depend on HW, not only work-load.)
So that is TODO in the future, I think.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]