On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:52:44AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:09 +0100 > Andrea Righi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:07AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > I am still setting up the system to test whether we see any speedup in > > > writeout of large files with-in a memory cgroup with small memory limits. > > > I am assuming that we are expecting a speedup because we will start > > > writeouts early and background writeouts probably are faster than direct > > > reclaim? > > > > mmh... speedup? I think with a large file write + reduced dirty limits > > you'll get a more uniform write-out (more frequent small writes), > > respect to few and less frequent large writes. The system will be more > > reactive, but I don't think you'll be able to see a speedup in the large > > write itself. > > > Ah, sorry. I misunderstood something. But it's depends on dirty_ratio param. > If > background_dirty_ratio = 5 > dirty_ratio = 100 > under 100M cgroup, I think background write-out will be a help.
Right, in this case background flusher threads will help a lot to write-out the cgroup dirty memory and it'll get better performance. -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
