* Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-09-16 00:12:37]: > Hi Dhaval, > > Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Hi Ryo, > > > > > > > > I am not sure that upstream should really be worrying about RHEL 5.x. > > > > cgroups is a relatively mature solution and is available in most (if not > > > > all) community distros today. We really should not be looking at another > > > > grouping solution if the sole reason is that then dm-ioband can be used > > > > on RHEL 5.x. The correct solution would be to maintain a separate patch > > > > for RHEL 5.x then and not to burden the upstream kernel. > > > > > > RHEL 5.x is not the sole reason for that. > > > > > > > Could you please enumerate the other reasons for pushing in another > > grouping mechanism then? (Why can we not resolve them via cgroups?) > > I'm sorry for late reply. > > I'm not only pushing in the grouping mechanism by using the dmsetup > command. Please understand that dm-ioband also provides cgroup > interface and can be configured in the same manner like other cgroup > subsystems. > Why it is so bad to have multiple ways to configure? I think that it > rather gains in flexibility of configurations. > The main issue I see is user confusion and distro issues. If a distro compiles cgroups and dmsetup provides both methods, what method do we recommend to end users? Also should system management tool support two configuration mechanisms for the same functionality? -- Balbir -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
