Hi, Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an > > > advantage.) > > > > I think this is more of a disadvantage than advantage. We have a very well > > defined functionality of cgroup in kernel to group the tasks. Now you are > > coming up with your own method of grouping the tasks which will make life > > even more confusing for users and application writers. I know that cgroup is a very well defined functionality, that is why dm-ioband also supports throttling per cgroup. But how are we supposed to do throttling on the system which doesn't support cgroup? As I wrote in another mail to Vivek, I would like to make use of dm-ioband on RHEL 5.x. And I don't think that the grouping methods are not complicated, just stack a new device on the existing device and assign bandwidth to it, that is the same method as other device-mapper targets, if you would like to assign bandwidth per thread, then register the thread's ID to the device and assign bandwidth to it as well. I don't think it makes users confused. > I would tend to agree with this. With other resource management > controllers using cgroups, having dm-ioband use something different will > require a different set of userspace tools/libraries to be used. > Something that will severly limit its usefulness froma programmer's > perspective. Once we create a dm-ioband device, the device can be configured through the cgroup interface. I think it will not severly limit its usefulness. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
