On Tue, Apr 21 2009 at 8:10am -0400, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Nauman, > > > > The real question is, once you create a version of dm-ioband that > > > co-operates with CFQ scheduler, how that solution would compare with > > > the patch set Vivek has posted? In my opinion, we need to converge to > > > one solution as soon as possible, so that we can work on it together > > > to refine and test it. > > > > I think I can do some help for your work. but I want to continue the > > development of dm-ioband, because dm-ioband actually works well and > > I think it has some advantages against other IO controllers. > > - It can use without cgroup. > > - It can control bandwidth on a per partition basis. > > - The driver module can be replaced without stopping the system. > > In addition, dm-ioband can run on the RHEL5. RHEL5 compatibility does not matter relative to merging an I/O bandwidth controller upstream. So both the "can [be] use without cgroup" and "can run on RHEL5" features do not help your cause of getting dm-ioband merged upstream. In fact these features serve as distractions. Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
