Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit
From: Paolo Valente
Date: Tue Oct 04 2016 - 13:01:56 EST
> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 18:27, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 06:22:28PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Could you please elaborate more on this point? BFQ uses sectors
>> served to measure service, and, on the all the fast devices on which
>> we have tested it, it accurately distributes
>> bandwidth as desired, redistributes excess bandwidth with any issue,
>> and guarantees high responsiveness and low latency at application and
>> system level (e.g., ~0 drop rate in video playback, with any background
>> workload tested).
> The same argument as before. Bandwidth is a very bad measure of IO
> resources spent. For specific use cases (like desktop or whatever),
> this can work but not generally.
Actually, we have already discussed this point, and IMHO the arguments
that (apparently) convinced you that bandwidth is the most relevant
service guarantee for I/O in desktops and the like, prove that
bandwidth is the most important service guarantee in servers too.
Again, all the examples I can think of seem to confirm it:
. file hosting: a good service must guarantee reasonable read/write,
i.e., download/upload, speeds to users
. file streaming: a good service must guarantee low drop rates, and
this can be guaranteed only by guaranteeing bandwidth and latency
. web hosting: high bandwidth and low latency needed here too
. clouds: high bw and low latency needed to let, e.g., users of VMs
enjoy high responsiveness and, for example, reasonable file-copy
To put in yet another way, with packet I/O in, e.g., clouds, there are
basically the same issues, and the main goal is again guaranteeing
bandwidth and low latency among nodes.
Could you please provide a concrete server example (assuming we still
agree about desktops), where I/O bandwidth does not matter while time
>> Could you please suggest me some test to show how sector-based
>> guarantees fails?
> Well, mix 4k random and sequential workloads and try to distribute the
> acteual IO resources.
If I'm not mistaken, we have already gone through this example too,
and I thought we agreed on what service scheme worked best, again
focusing only on desktops. To make a long story short(er), here is a
snippet from one of our last exchanges.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:08:44AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Maybe the source of confusion is the fact that a simple sector-based,
> proportional share scheduler always distributes total bandwidth
> according to weights. The catch is the additional BFQ rule: random
> workloads get only time isolation, and are charged for full budgets,
> so as to not affect the schedule of quasi-sequential workloads. So,
> the correct claim for BFQ is that it distributes total bandwidth
> according to weights (only) when all competing workloads are
> quasi-sequential. If some workloads are random, then these workloads
> are just time scheduled. This does break proportional-share bandwidth
> distribution with mixed workloads, but, much more importantly, saves
> both total throughput and individual bandwidths of quasi-sequential
> We could then check whether I did succeed in tuning timeouts and
> budgets so as to achieve the best tradeoffs. But this is probably a
> second-order problem as of now.
[you] Ah, I see. Yeah, that clears it up for me. I'm gonna play with
cgroup settings and see how it actually behaves.
Why does the above argument not work for a server too? What am I
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche
Via Campi 213/B
41125 Modena - Italy