dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
taka at valinux.co.jp
Fri Sep 26 06:04:18 PDT 2008
> > > > It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer
> > > > if it is really a big problem.
> > > > But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since
> > > > the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor.
> > >
> > > Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system,
> > > one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller.
> > > Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism.
> > > Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems
> > > little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software
> > > harder.
> > >
> > > Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases
> > > of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right
> > > cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by
> > > user space tools.
> > Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking
> > can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done.
> > I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages
> > and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource.
> > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the
> > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources.
> Sorry, I did not understand fully. Can you please explain in detail what
> kind of situation will not be covered by cgroup interface.
More information about the Containers