Hi,
> you mean that you run 128 processes on each user-device pairs? Namely,
> I guess that
>
> user1: 128 processes on sdb5,
> user2: 128 processes on sdb5,
> another: 128 processes on sdb5,
> user2: 128 processes on sdb6.
"User-device pairs" means "band groups", right?
What I actually did is the followings:
user1: 128 processes on sdb5,
user2: 128 processes on sdb5,
user3: 128 processes on sdb5,
user4: 128 processes on sdb6.
> The second preliminary studies might be:
> - What if you use a different I/O size on each device (or device-user pair)?
> - What if you use a different number of processes on each device (or
> device-user pair)?
There are other ideas of controlling bandwidth, limiting bytes-per-sec,
latency time or something. I think it is possible to implement it if
a lot of people really require it. I feel there wouldn't be a single
correct answer for this issue. Posting good ideas how it should work
and submitting patches for it are also welcome.
> And my impression is that it's natural dm-band is in device-mapper,
> separated from I/O scheduler. Because bandwidth control and I/O
> scheduling are two different things, it may be simpler that they are
> implemented in different layers.
I would like to know how dm-band works on various configurations on
various type of hardware. I'll try running dm-band on with other
configurations. Any reports or impressions of dm-band on your machines
are also welcome.
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home