Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests

[Rik van Riel]

Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Are you saying that dm-ioband is purposely unfair,
> > until a certain load level is reached?
>
> Not unfair, dm-ioband(weight policy) is intentionally designed to
> use bandwidth efficiently, weight policy tries to give spare bandwidth
> of inactive groups to active groups.

This sounds good, except that the lack of anticipation
means that a group with just one task doing reads will
be considered "inactive" in-between reads.

This means writes can always get in-between two reads,
sometimes multiple writes at a time, really disadvantaging
a group that is doing just disk reads.

This is a problem, because reads are generally more time
sensitive than writes.

> > > 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?
>
> I think it reduces system throughput compared to the current
> implementation, because it causes more overhead to do fine grained
> control. 

Except that the io scheduler based io controller seems
to be able to enforce fairness while not reducing
throughput.

Dm-ioband would have to address these issues to be a
serious contender, IMHO.

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