Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752046AbZI1HiJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:38:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751486AbZI1HiJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:38:09 -0400 Received: from mail.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.3]:46475 "EHLO mail.valinux.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750900AbZI1HiI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:38:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:38:11 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20090928.163811.104053649.ryov@valinux.co.jp> To: riel@redhat.com Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 From: Ryo Tsuruta In-Reply-To: <4ABCDBFF.1020203@redhat.com> References: <20090925050429.GB12555@redhat.com> <20090925.180724.104041942.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <4ABCDBFF.1020203@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2.52 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1089 Lines: 30 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/