[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ABCDBFF.1020203@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:04:31 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
CC: vgoyal@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp,
guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, jmarchan@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Because dm-ioband provides faireness in terms of how many IO requests
> are issued or how many bytes are transferred, so this behaviour is to
> be expected. Do you think fairness in terms of IO requests and size is
> not fair?
When there are two workloads competing for the same
resources, I would expect each of the workloads to
run at about 50% of the speed at which it would run
on an uncontended system.
Having one of the workloads run at 95% of the
uncontended speed and the other workload at 5%
is "not fair" (to put it diplomatically).
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists