Hi Munehiro Ikeda Thanks for your attention. and sorry for late reply. 2009/8/29 Munehiro Ikeda <m-ikeda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Hello Dong-Jae, > > Dong-Jae Kang wrote, on 08/26/2009 09:46 PM: > > Hi Ryo >> >> I attached new test result file(ioband-partition-based-evaluation.xls)in >> this mail. >> In this time, it is not virtualization environment. >> I evaluated partition-based use cases before I do it in vitualization >> environment. >> because I think the two cases are smilar each other. >> >> The detailed information about the evaluation can be referred in attached >> file. >> >> If you have any questions or comments after examine it, >> please give me your opinion. >> >> Thank you. >> > > Good work. > Please let me ask silly questions. > > (1) About what "target" means > I guess "device" means writing to device files directly > (--filename=/dev/mapper/ioband1) > and "directory" means mounting these device files and writing to some > directory > on the filesystem > (--filename=/mnt/ioband1/test.dat, I'm assuming mount /dev/mapper/ioband1 > on > /mnt/ioband1), > am I wright? > Yes, you are right. I also think the terms can leave misunderstanding. :) > > (2) Conditions in RDF sheet > Conditions in sheet "RDF" and "RBF" are same but results are slightly > different. > Should "Mode" in RDF sheet be "Direct"? As the Report sheet in the file shows, "D" in RDF means Direct I/O and "B" in RBF means Buffered I/O(delayed I/O). I think the reason for difference in result, especially several fluctuation in RBF, is related with buffer cache and pdflushd daemon. So, generally, I/O bandwidth controll in direct I/O mode is more accurate than that of buffered I/O mode. > > > > Regards, > Muuhh > > -- > IKEDA, Munehiro > NEC Corporation of America > m-ikeda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- Best Regards, Dong-Jae Kang _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
