[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov valinux co jp>
- To: riel redhat com
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, jens axboe oracle com, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, jmarchan redhat com, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, fernando oss ntt co jp, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, mingo elte hu, vgoyal redhat com, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, akpm linux-foundation org, containers lists linux-foundation org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, s-uchida ap jp nec com, righi andrea gmail com, torvalds linux-foundation org
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:38:11 +0900 (JST)
Hi Rik,
Rik van Riel <riel redhat com> wrote:
> Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
>
> > Because dm-ioband provides faireness in terms of how many IO requests
> > are issued or how many bytes are transferred, so this behaviour is to
> > be expected. Do you think fairness in terms of IO requests and size is
> > not fair?
>
> When there are two workloads competing for the same
> resources, I would expect each of the workloads to
> run at about 50% of the speed at which it would run
> on an uncontended system.
>
> Having one of the workloads run at 95% of the
> uncontended speed and the other workload at 5%
> is "not fair" (to put it diplomatically).
As I wrote in the mail to Vivek, I think that providing multiple
policies, on a per disk time basis, on a per iosize basis, maximum
rate limiting or etc would be good for users.
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]