On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:09:32AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/28/2011 02:59 AM, Lei Li wrote: > >>Given that the XML is named <iotune> under <disk>, we should probably > >>name the virsh command 'blkiotune' or 'disk-iotune', not 'blkiothrottle'. > >> > >Hi Eric, we used<iothrottle> first, I changed it since Daniel P. Berrange > >proposed<iotune> for per-disk element instead of<iothrottle> when we > >discussed at RFC V1. > > > >The command 'blkiotune' already exist, supported the cgroups > >blkio-controller, which handles proportional shares and throughput/iops > >limits on host block devices, global to the domain, but blkio throttling > >is specified per-disk and can vary across multiple disks. They are > >different > >two mechanism. > > > >So how about use<iothrottle> again? :) > > For extensibility, I _don't_ want to hardcode 'throttle' into the > name; the goal here is that we want this xml element to contain all > tuning parameters that are appropriate for a single disk, which > could be more than just throttling. So using 'virsh disk-iotune' > sounds like the best name for the virsh side of the command. I'd prefer 'blkdeviotune', so it is discoverable alongside blkiotune Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list