* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-05-06 00:20:49]: > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400 > > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Here is the V2 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.30-rc4. > > > ... > > > Currently primarily two other IO controller proposals are out there. > > > > > > dm-ioband > > > --------- > > > This patch set is from Ryo Tsuruta from valinux. > > > ... > > > IO-throttling > > > ------------- > > > This patch set is from Andrea Righi provides max bandwidth controller. > > > > I'm thinking we need to lock you guys in a room and come back in 15 minutes. > > > > Seriously, how are we to resolve this? We could lock me in a room and > > cmoe back in 15 days, but there's no reason to believe that I'd emerge > > with the best answer. > > > > I tend to think that a cgroup-based controller is the way to go. > > Anything else will need to be wired up to cgroups _anyway_, and that > > might end up messy. > > FWIW I subscribe to the io-scheduler faith as opposed to the > device-mapper cult ;-) > > Also, I don't think a simple throttle will be very useful, a more mature > solution should cater to more use cases. > I tend to agree, unless Andrea can prove us wrong. I don't think throttling a task (not letting it consume CPU, memory when its IO quota is exceeded) is a good idea. I've asked that question to Andrea a few times, but got no response. -- Balbir _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
