Hi, Ryo. Sorry for late reply. 2009/5/12 Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Dong-Jae, >> >> after bug-fix,I evaluated range-bw according to your configuration and >> >> test environment >> >> the result is in new relesed range-bw mail, [PATCH 0/2] >> >> and more detailed documentation is also available and it can be >> >> referred in [PATCH 1/2] >> >> >> >> Ryo, >> >> can you check the result ? > > I did the same test as before and got the results as expected. > > cgroup1 cgroup2 > min:max-bw 0:100 0:200 > ------------------------------------- > read 100 197 > write 103 198 [KB/s] > I think upper result is reasonable. because you configured min and max bandwidth as 0K:100K(for cgroup1) and 0K:200K(for cgroup2). So, range-bw supported appropriate and expected bandwidth with 1~3% error range. minimum bandwidth was satisfied (0K, 0K ) and maximum bandwidth was limited (100K, 200K) but there is some considered point in use of range-bw as I described in [PATCH 0/2] as below. * Attention ----------------- Range-BW supports the predicable I/O bandwidth, but it should be configured in the scope of total I/O bandwidth of the I/O system to guarantee the minimum I/O requirement. For example, if total I/O bandwidth is 40Mbytes/sec, the summary of I/O bandwidth configured in each process group should be equal or smaller than 40Mbytes/sec. So, we need to check total I/O bandwidth before set it up. If you need more another information about range-bw, reply to me. > I got errors while applying your patch, some lines are wrapped with > carriage returns. > > +extern int policy_range_bw_init(struct ioband_device *dp, int argc, > >> char **argv); Thank you for bug reporting I will check it again. > > Thanks, > Ryo Tsuruta > -- Best Regards, Dong-Jae Kang _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers