Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Tue 2008-01-15 17:49:36, Andrea Righi wrote:
>> Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
>> additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
>> configfs tree.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> Limit the I/O bandwidth for user
On Tue 2008-01-15 17:49:36, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
> additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
> configfs tree.
>
> Examples:
>
> Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data (UID 33) to 4MB/s:
>
On Tue 2008-01-15 17:49:36, Andrea Righi wrote:
Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
configfs tree.
Examples:
Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data (UID 33) to 4MB/s:
[EMAIL
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2008-01-15 17:49:36, Andrea Righi wrote:
Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
configfs tree.
Examples:
Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data (UID 33)
Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Andrea Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 17:49:36]:
>
>> Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
>> additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
>> configfs tree.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> Limit the I/O bandwidth
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:35:33 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
> Control groups is derived from cpusets and for those interested in
> grouping tasks for control, is the preferred method of providing
> control.
Ahh, that's why I didn't notice it - "cpusets" didn't seem to do much for the 1
and 2 CPU
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-16 06:30:31]:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
>
> > Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater
> > detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a
> > control group filesystem
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
> Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater
> detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a
> control group filesystem available for grouping tasks and providing a
> file system based interface for
* Andrea Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 17:49:36]:
> Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
> additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
> configfs tree.
>
> Examples:
>
> Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data (UID 33) to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater
detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a
control group filesystem available for grouping tasks and providing a
file system based interface for
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-16 06:30:31]:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater
detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a
control group filesystem available for
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:35:33 +0530, Balbir Singh said:
Control groups is derived from cpusets and for those interested in
grouping tasks for control, is the preferred method of providing
control.
Ahh, that's why I didn't notice it - cpusets didn't seem to do much for the 1
and 2 CPU systems I
Balbir Singh wrote:
* Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-15 17:49:36]:
Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing
additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a
configfs tree.
Examples:
Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data
13 matches
Mail list logo
