On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 16:27 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-12 10:46:37]: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 23:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:32:49 +0100, Andrea Righi said: > > > > > > > The interesting feature is that it allows to set a priority for each > > > > process container, but AFAIK it doesn't allow to "partition" the > > > > bandwidth between different containers (that would be a nice feature > > > > IMHO). For example it would be great to be able to define per-container > > > > limits, like assign 10MB/s for processes in container A, 30MB/s to > > > > container B, 20MB/s to container C, etc. > > > > > > Has anybody considered allocating based on *seeks* rather than bytes > > > moved, > > > or counting seeks as "virtual bytes" for the purposes of accounting (if > > > the > > > disk can do 50mbytes/sec, and a seek takes 5millisecs, then count it as > > > 100K > > > of data)? > > > > I was considering a time scheduler, you can fill your time slot with > > seeks or data, it might be what CFQ does, but I've never even read the > > code. > > > > So far the definition of I/O bandwidth has been w.r.t time. Not all IO > devices have sectors; I'd prefer bytes over a period of time.
Doing a time based one would only require knowing the (avg) delay of seeks, whereas doing a bytes based one would also require knowing the (avg) speed of the device. That is, if you're also interested in providing a latency guarantee. Because that'd force you to convert bytes to time again. I'm not sure thats a good way to go with as long as a majority of devices still have a non-0 seek penalty (SSDs just aren't there yet for most of us). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
