This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] Re: VM disk I/O limit patch

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:32:14PM +0200, Florian Heigl wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
> Thanks for providing links to info about both dm-ioband and bklio.
> This is surely something to test with and might be the best choice for
> Xen from 2.6.34 and up.
> Question/food for thought:
> since:
> - 2.6.18 still has CFQ1 which has notable issues with processes
> starving each other (some people have seen this and some havent, but
> it exists and it's one of the worst issues that exist. Normally people
> will switch to deadline scheduler and ... experience they no longer
> can priorize now, and even then they'll still see their dom0 go
> sluggish if a domU is too IO heavy)
> - Both blkio patch and dm-ioband are not in 2.6.18 and not even in 2.6.32(!!!)

Right, so you can upgrade to 3.0 or 2.6.39.

> - The patch from last week was for 2.618...

Ah, not idea who is the maintainer for the 2.6.18 tree anymore.

> would it be possible to add the patch to the 2.6.18-ish Xen trees and
> not into the 3.x one?

You are welcome to do this, but I don't think anybody else is going to do this.
I am definitly not going to take the patch for the 3.0 tree.

> We could have a (hopefully) working solution for a problem that exists
> now on the deployments that are in use now and that could easily go
> into a XenServer 5.6 Patch123456 or XCP or OracleVM.
> This might also be the more time-conserving way to do it, since right
> now the cgroups mechanisms in Linux are nice, but it should be obvious
> that there's still a year or two to go from setting up every single
> stuff via /sys after a process is started to a working solution that
> can be pre-configured for all VMs.
> Unless anybody thinks this is enough ;)
> 2011/6/27 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:45:36PM -0700, Shaun Reitan wrote:
> >> Does this match only limit throughput or can it also limit the guest
> >> by disk IOPS?  christopher aker had a patch way back for UML that
> >
> > Just throughpout.
> >
> >> did disk based qos.  What i really liked about that patch was that
> >> it allowed for bursting by using a bucket.  If i remember correctly
> anything that is able to employ limits and keeps them burstable is
> just perfect :)
> -- 
> the purpose of libvirt is to provide an abstraction layer hiding all
> xen features added since 2006 until they were finally understood and
> copied by the kvm devs.

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>