Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

[Ryo Tsuruta]

Hi Balbir,

Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-09-08 12:01:19]:
> 
> > I think there are some advantages to dm-ioband. That's why I post
> > dm-ioband to the mailing list.
> > 
> > - dm-ioband supports not only proportional weight policy but also rate
> >   limiting policy. Besides, new policies can be added to dm-ioband if
> >   a user wants to control bandwidth by his or her own policy.
> > - The dm-ioband driver can be replaced without stopping the system by
> >   using device-mapper's facility. It's easy to maintain.
> > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an
> >   advantage.)
> 
> But don't you need page_cgroup for IO tracking?

It is not necessary when controlling bandwidth on a per partition
basis or on a IO thread basis like Xen blkback kernel thread.

Here are configration examples.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/ioband/wiki/dm-ioband/man/examples

Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
--
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/