* 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.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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/
