[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
- From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov valinux co jp>
- To: balbir linux vnet ibm com
- Cc: riel redhat com, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, jmoyer redhat com, dm-devel redhat com, vgoyal redhat com, jens axboe oracle com, nauman google com, akpm linux-foundation org, agk redhat com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:05:16 +0900 (JST)
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
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]