From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com,
dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, agk@redhat.com,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:58:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AAFB98F.80201@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090915151952.GH4846@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> [2009-09-16 00:12:37]:
>> Why it is so bad to have multiple ways to configure? I think that it
>> rather gains in flexibility of configurations.
>>
>
> The main issue I see is user confusion and distro issues. If a distro
> compiles cgroups and dmsetup provides both methods, what method
> do we recommend to end users? Also should system management tool
> support two configuration mechanisms for the same functionality?
It gets worse.
If the distro sets up things via cgroups and the admin tries
to use dmsetup - how does the configuration propagate between
the two mechanisms?
The sysadmin would expect that any changes made via dmsetup
will become visible via the config tools (that use cgroups),
too.
This will quickly increase the code requirements to ridiculous
proportions - or leave sysadmins confused and annoyed.
Neither is a good option, IMHO.
--
All rights reversed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp>,
dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 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
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:58:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AAFB98F.80201@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090915151952.GH4846@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> [2009-09-16 00:12:37]:
>> Why it is so bad to have multiple ways to configure? I think that it
>> rather gains in flexibility of configurations.
>>
>
> The main issue I see is user confusion and distro issues. If a distro
> compiles cgroups and dmsetup provides both methods, what method
> do we recommend to end users? Also should system management tool
> support two configuration mechanisms for the same functionality?
It gets worse.
If the distro sets up things via cgroups and the admin tries
to use dmsetup - how does the configuration propagate between
the two mechanisms?
The sysadmin would expect that any changes made via dmsetup
will become visible via the config tools (that use cgroups),
too.
This will quickly increase the code requirements to ridiculous
proportions - or leave sysadmins confused and annoyed.
Neither is a good option, IMHO.
--
All rights reversed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-15 15:58 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
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 [this message]
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=4AAFB98F.80201@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dhaval@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=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.