Hi Rik, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > > > If once dm-ioband is integrated into the LVM tools and bandwidth can > > be assigned per device by lvcreate, the use of dm-tools is no longer > > required for users. > > A lot of large data center users have a SAN, with volume management > handled SAN-side and dedicated LUNs for different applications or > groups of applications. > > Because of alignment issues, they typically use filesystems directly > on top of the LUNs, without partitions or LVM layers. We cannot rely > on LVM for these systems, because people prefer not to use that. Thank you for your explanation. So I have a plan to reimplement dm-ioband into the block layer to make dm-tools no longer required. My opinion I wrote above assumes if dm-ioband is used for a logical volume which consists of multiple physical devices. If dm-ioband is integrated into the LVM tools, then the use of the dm-tools is not required and the underlying physical devices can be automatically deteced and configured to use dm-ioband. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta > Besides ... isn't the goal of the cgroups io bandwidth controller > to control the IO used by PROCESSES? > > If we want to control processes, why would we want the configuration > to be applied to any other kind of object in the system? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
