linux-kernel - Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AA51065.6050000@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:53:41 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
CC:	vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nauman@...gle.com,
	guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

Ryo Tsuruta wrote:

> However, if you want to get fairness in a case like this, a new
> bandwidth control policy which controls accurately according to
> assigned weights can be added to dm-ioband.

Are you saying that dm-ioband is purposely unfair,
until a certain load level is reached?

> We regarded reducing throughput loss rather than reducing duration
> as the design of dm-ioband. Of course, it is possible to make a new
> policy which reduces duration.

... while also reducing overall system throughput
by design?

Why are you even bothering to submit this to the
linux-kernel mailing list, when there is a codebase
available that has no throughput or fairness regressions?
(Vivek's io scheduler based io controler)

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/