From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: Re: VM disk I/O limit patch Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:29:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20110628132957.GC7777@dumpdata.com> References: <20110621162935.F4A1.3A8D29D5@cloudex.cn> <20110627154148.GK6978@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Florian Heigl Cc: Shaun Reitan , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:32:14PM +0200, Florian Heigl wrote: > Hi Konrad, >=20 > Thanks for providing links to info about both dm-ioband and bklio. > This is surely something to test with and might be the best choice for > Xen from 2.6.34 and up. >=20 > Question/food for thought: > since: > - 2.6.18 still has CFQ1 which has notable issues with processes > starving each other (some people have seen this and some havent, but > it exists and it's one of the worst issues that exist. Normally people > will switch to deadline scheduler and ... experience they no longer > can priorize now, and even then they'll still see their dom0 go > sluggish if a domU is too IO heavy) > - Both blkio patch and dm-ioband are not in 2.6.18 and not even in 2.6.= 32(!!!) Right, so you can upgrade to 3.0 or 2.6.39. > - The patch from last week was for 2.618... Ah, not idea who is the maintainer for the 2.6.18 tree anymore. >=20 > would it be possible to add the patch to the 2.6.18-ish Xen trees and > not into the 3.x one? You are welcome to do this, but I don't think anybody else is going to do= this. I am definitly not going to take the patch for the 3.0 tree. > We could have a (hopefully) working solution for a problem that exists > now on the deployments that are in use now and that could easily go > into a XenServer 5.6 Patch123456 or XCP or OracleVM. >=20 >=20 > This might also be the more time-conserving way to do it, since right > now the cgroups mechanisms in Linux are nice, but it should be obvious > that there's still a year or two to go from setting up every single > stuff via /sys after a process is started to a working solution that > can be pre-configured for all VMs. >=20 > Unless anybody thinks this is enough ;) >=20 >=20 > 2011/6/27 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk : > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:45:36PM -0700, Shaun Reitan wrote: > >> Does this match only limit throughput or can it also limit the guest > >> by disk IOPS? =A0christopher aker had a patch way back for UML that > > > > Just throughpout. > > > >> did disk based qos. =A0What i really liked about that patch was that > >> it allowed for bursting by using a bucket. =A0If i remember correctl= y >=20 > anything that is able to employ limits and keeps them burstable is > just perfect :) >=20 >=20 > --=20 > the purpose of libvirt is to provide an abstraction layer hiding all > xen features added since 2006 until they were finally understood and > copied by the kvm devs.