Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756841AbZJHKXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:23:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755195AbZJHKXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:23:21 -0400 Received: from mail.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.3]:39353 "EHLO mail.valinux.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756063AbZJHKXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:23:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:22:42 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20091008.192242.39182274.ryov@valinux.co.jp> To: riel@redhat.com Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.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, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 From: Ryo Tsuruta In-Reply-To: <4ACCC4B7.4050805@redhat.com> References: <20091006112201.GA27866@redhat.com> <20091007.233805.183040347.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <4ACCC4B7.4050805@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: 1570 Lines: 38 Hi Rik, Rik van Riel wrote: > Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > > > If once dm-ioband is integrated into the LVM tools and bandwidth can > > be assigned per device by lvcreate, the use of dm-tools is no longer > > required for users. > > A lot of large data center users have a SAN, with volume management > handled SAN-side and dedicated LUNs for different applications or > groups of applications. > > Because of alignment issues, they typically use filesystems directly > on top of the LUNs, without partitions or LVM layers. We cannot rely > on LVM for these systems, because people prefer not to use that. Thank you for your explanation. So I have a plan to reimplement dm-ioband into the block layer to make dm-tools no longer required. My opinion I wrote above assumes if dm-ioband is used for a logical volume which consists of multiple physical devices. If dm-ioband is integrated into the LVM tools, then the use of the dm-tools is not required and the underlying physical devices can be automatically deteced and configured to use dm-ioband. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta > Besides ... isn't the goal of the cgroups io bandwidth controller > to control the IO used by PROCESSES? > > If we want to control processes, why would we want the configuration > to be applied to any other kind of object in the system? -- 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/