From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryo Tsuruta Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:38:11 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20090928.163811.104053649.ryov__44776.2969685302$1254123533$gmane$org@valinux.co.jp> References: <20090925050429.GB12555@redhat.com> <20090925.180724.104041942.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <4ABCDBFF.1020203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4ABCDBFF.1020203-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: riel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Cc: dhaval-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, jmarchan-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, fchecconi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hi Rik, Rik van Riel wrote: > Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > > > Because dm-ioband provides faireness in terms of how many IO requests > > are issued or how many bytes are transferred, so this behaviour is to > > be expected. Do you think fairness in terms of IO requests and size is > > not fair? > > When there are two workloads competing for the same > resources, I would expect each of the workloads to > run at about 50% of the speed at which it would run > on an uncontended system. > > Having one of the workloads run at 95% of the > uncontended speed and the other workload at 5% > is "not fair" (to put it diplomatically). As I wrote in the mail to Vivek, I think that providing multiple policies, on a per disk time basis, on a per iosize basis, maximum rate limiting or etc would be good for users. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta