Hi Vivek, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It is not necessary when controlling bandwidth on a per partition > > basis or on a IO thread basis like Xen blkback kernel thread. > > > > Here are configration examples. > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/ioband/wiki/dm-ioband/man/examples > > > > For partition based control, where a thread or group of threads is doing > IO to a specific parition, why can't you simply create different cgroups > for each partition and move threads in those partitions. > > > root > / | \ > sda1 sda2 sda3 > > Above are three groups and move threads doing IO into those groups and > problem is solved. In fact that's what one will do for KVM virtual > machines. Move all the qemu helper threds doing IO for a virtual machine > instance into a specific group and control the IO. > > Why do you have to come up with additional complicated grouping mechanism? I don't get why you think it's complicated, your io-controller also provides the same grouping machanism which assigns bandwidth per device by io.policy file. What's the difference? The thread grouping machianism is also not special, it is the same concept as cgroup. These mechanisms are necessary to make use of dm-ioband on the systems which doesn't support cgroup such as RHEL 5.x. As you know, dm-ioband also supports cgroup, the configurations you mentioned above can apply to the system by dm-ioband. I think it's not bad to have several ways to setup. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
