From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: does btrfs have RAID I/O throughput (un)limiting sysctls, similar to md? Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:48:20 +0100 Message-ID: <201002071248.20721.Martin@lichtvoll.de> References: <6278d2221002060510i947059bx12697ba0a4f5e4c@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20100206_162038_531041_018BACCE) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2651970.tAQqSdKXby"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, 0bo0 <0.bugs.only.0@gmail.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: --nextPart2651970.tAQqSdKXby Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Samstag 06 Februar 2010 schrieben Sie: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Daniel J Blueman >=20 > wrote: > > These proc entries affect just array reconstruction, not general I/O > > performance/throughput, so affect just an edge-case of applications > > requiring maximum latency/minimum throughout guarantees. >=20 > although i'd 1st seen the perf hit at the (re)construction stage, i > didn't recognize that the sysctls were limited to that case. Limiting rebuild throughput helps to have productively running=20 applications getting their share of I/O during RAID rebuilds. =20 > so, iiuc, btrfs has no such issues? Issues? I would call that a feature, not an issue. =2D-=20 Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 --nextPart2651970.tAQqSdKXby Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAktuqIQACgkQmRvqrKWZhMeFwACfboJJ/qssvhjV7PdJp18wRl4A aWsAoKjnwSb3c601kEef0T1zJoIJfZnX =IDns -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2651970.tAQqSdKXby--