Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > BTW as I said in a previous email, an interesting path to > be explored > > IMHO could be to think in terms of IO time. So, look at the > time an IO > > request is issued to the drive, look at the time the > request is served, > > evaluate the difference and charge the consumed IO time to the > > appropriate cgroup. Then dispatch IO requests in function of the > > consumed IO time debts / credits, using for example a token-bucket > > strategy. And probably the best place to implement the IO time > > accounting is the elevator. > Please note that the seek time for a specific IO request is strongly > correlated with the IO requests that preceded it, which means that the > owner of that request is not the only one to blame if it > takes too long > to process it. In other words, with the algorithm you propose > we may end > up charging the wrong guy.
I assume all of these discussions are focused on simple storage - disks direct attached to a single server - and are not targeted at SANs with arrays, multi-initiator accesses, and fabric/network impacts. True ? Such algorithms can be seriously off-base in these latter configurations. -- james s _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
