Re: dm-ioband: Test results.

[Mike Snitzer]

On Tue, Apr 21 2009 at  8:10am -0400,
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Nauman,
> 
> > > The real question is, once you create a version of dm-ioband that
> > > co-operates with CFQ scheduler, how that solution would compare with
> > > the patch set Vivek has posted? In my opinion, we need to converge to
> > > one solution as soon as possible, so that we can work on it together
> > > to refine and test it.
> > 
> > I think I can do some help for your work. but I want to continue the
> > development of dm-ioband, because dm-ioband actually works well and
> > I think it has some advantages against other IO controllers.
> >   - It can use without cgroup.
> >   - It can control bandwidth on a per partition basis.
> >   - The driver module can be replaced without stopping the system.
> 
> In addition, dm-ioband can run on the RHEL5.

RHEL5 compatibility does not matter relative to merging an I/O bandwidth
controller upstream.  So both the "can [be] use without cgroup" and "can
run on RHEL5" features do not help your cause of getting dm-ioband
merged upstream.  In fact these features serve as distractions.

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/