| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:05:16 +0900 (JST) From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: riel@...hat.com, 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 Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests Hi Balbir, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> [2009-09-08 12:01:19]: > > > I think there are some advantages to dm-ioband. That's why I post > > dm-ioband to the mailing list. > > > > - dm-ioband supports not only proportional weight policy but also rate > > limiting policy. Besides, new policies can be added to dm-ioband if > > a user wants to control bandwidth by his or her own policy. > > - The dm-ioband driver can be replaced without stopping the system by > > using device-mapper's facility. It's easy to maintain. > > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an > > advantage.) > > But don't you need page_cgroup for IO tracking? It is not necessary when controlling bandwidth on a per partition basis or on a IO thread basis like Xen blkback kernel thread. Here are configration examples. http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/ioband/wiki/dm-ioband/man/examples Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists