From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Cc: 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,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:53:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AA51065.6050000@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090907.200222.193693062.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> However, if you want to get fairness in a case like this, a new
> bandwidth control policy which controls accurately according to
> assigned weights can be added to dm-ioband.
Are you saying that dm-ioband is purposely unfair,
until a certain load level is reached?
> We regarded reducing throughput loss rather than reducing duration
> as the design of dm-ioband. Of course, it is possible to make a new
> policy which reduces duration.
... while also reducing overall system throughput
by design?
Why are you even bothering to submit this to the
linux-kernel mailing list, when there is a codebase
available that has no throughput or fairness regressions?
(Vivek's io scheduler based io controler)
--
All rights reversed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dm-devel@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, agk@redhat.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, nauman@google.com,
guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, jmoyer@redhat.com,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:53:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AA51065.6050000@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090907.200222.193693062.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> However, if you want to get fairness in a case like this, a new
> bandwidth control policy which controls accurately according to
> assigned weights can be added to dm-ioband.
Are you saying that dm-ioband is purposely unfair,
until a certain load level is reached?
> We regarded reducing throughput loss rather than reducing duration
> as the design of dm-ioband. Of course, it is possible to make a new
> policy which reduces duration.
... while also reducing overall system throughput
by design?
Why are you even bothering to submit this to the
linux-kernel mailing list, when there is a codebase
available that has no throughput or fairness regressions?
(Vivek's io scheduler based io controler)
--
All rights reversed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-07 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-01 16:50 Regarding dm-ioband tests Vivek Goyal
2009-09-01 16:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-01 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-01 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-03 13:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-03 13:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-04 1:12 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-15 21:40 ` dm-ioband fairness in terms of sectors seems to be killing disk (Was: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests) Vivek Goyal
2009-09-15 21:40 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-16 11:10 ` dm-ioband fairness in terms of sectors seems to be killing disk Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-16 11:10 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-04 4:02 ` Regarding dm-ioband tests Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-04 4:02 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-04 23:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-04 23:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-07 11:02 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-07 11:02 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-07 13:53 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2009-09-07 13:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-08 3:01 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-08 3:01 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-08 3:22 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-08 3:22 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-08 5:05 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-08 5:05 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-08 13:49 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 13:49 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 5:17 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 5:17 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 13:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 13:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 13:42 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 13:42 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 16:30 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-09-08 16:30 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-09-08 16:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-08 16:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-08 17:54 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 17:54 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-15 23:37 ` ioband: Writer starves reader even without competitors (Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests) Vivek Goyal
2009-09-15 23:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-16 12:08 ` ioband: Writer starves reader even without competitors Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-08 17:06 ` Regarding dm-ioband tests Dhaval Giani
2009-09-09 6:05 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 6:05 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 10:51 ` Dhaval Giani
2009-09-10 7:58 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-10 7:58 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-11 9:53 ` Dhaval Giani
2009-09-15 15:12 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-15 15:12 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-15 15:19 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-15 15:19 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-15 15:58 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-15 15:58 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-15 16:21 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-15 16:21 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 13:57 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 13:57 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-10 3:06 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 10:01 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-10 3:45 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-10 13:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-10 13:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-08 19:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-08 19:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-09-09 0:09 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-09-09 2:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 2:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 15:41 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-09-09 17:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 17:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-09 19:01 ` Fabio Checconi
2009-09-09 9:24 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-09 9:24 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-09-16 4:45 ` ioband: Limited fairness and weak isolation between groups (Was: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests) Vivek Goyal
2009-09-16 4:45 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-09-18 7:33 ` ioband: Limited fairness and weak isolation between groups Ryo Tsuruta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4AA51065.6050000@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nauman@google.com \
--cc=ryov@valinux.co.jp \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.