Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1495528
| From | Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit |
| Date | 2016-10-04 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soBo6-5Ek-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <soiY9-1K3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <soxXb-3fH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <soAil-4L7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <soALn-5bt-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <soALn-5bt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
> Il giorno 04 ott 2016, alle ore 18:27, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> ha scritto: > > Hello, > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 06:22:28PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> Could you please elaborate more on this point? BFQ uses sectors >> served to measure service, and, on the all the fast devices on which >> we have tested it, it accurately distributes >> bandwidth as desired, redistributes excess bandwidth with any issue, >> and guarantees high responsiveness and low latency at application and >> system level (e.g., ~0 drop rate in video playback, with any background >> workload tested). > > The same argument as before. Bandwidth is a very bad measure of IO > resources spent. For specific use cases (like desktop or whatever), > this can work but not generally. > Actually, we have already discussed this point, and IMHO the arguments that (apparently) convinced you that bandwidth is the most relevant service guarantee for I/O in desktops and the like, prove that bandwidth is the most important service guarantee in servers too. Again, all the examples I can think of seem to confirm it: . file hosting: a good service must guarantee reasonable read/write, i.e., download/upload, speeds to users . file streaming: a good service must guarantee low drop rates, and this can be guaranteed only by guaranteeing bandwidth and latency . web hosting: high bandwidth and low latency needed here too . clouds: high bw and low latency needed to let, e.g., users of VMs enjoy high responsiveness and, for example, reasonable file-copy time ... To put in yet another way, with packet I/O in, e.g., clouds, there are basically the same issues, and the main goal is again guaranteeing bandwidth and low latency among nodes. Could you please provide a concrete server example (assuming we still agree about desktops), where I/O bandwidth does not matter while time does? >> Could you please suggest me some test to show how sector-based >> guarantees fails? > > Well, mix 4k random and sequential workloads and try to distribute the > acteual IO resources. > If I'm not mistaken, we have already gone through this example too, and I thought we agreed on what service scheme worked best, again focusing only on desktops. To make a long story short(er), here is a snippet from one of our last exchanges. ---------- On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:08:44AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > Maybe the source of confusion is the fact that a simple sector-based, > proportional share scheduler always distributes total bandwidth > according to weights. The catch is the additional BFQ rule: random > workloads get only time isolation, and are charged for full budgets, > so as to not affect the schedule of quasi-sequential workloads. So, > the correct claim for BFQ is that it distributes total bandwidth > according to weights (only) when all competing workloads are > quasi-sequential. If some workloads are random, then these workloads > are just time scheduled. This does break proportional-share bandwidth > distribution with mixed workloads, but, much more importantly, saves > both total throughput and individual bandwidths of quasi-sequential > workloads. > > We could then check whether I did succeed in tuning timeouts and > budgets so as to achieve the best tradeoffs. But this is probably a > second-order problem as of now. [you] Ah, I see. Yeah, that clears it up for me. I'm gonna play with cgroup settings and see how it actually behaves. --------- Why does the above argument not work for a server too? What am I missing? Thanks, Paolo > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- Paolo Valente Algogroup Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche Via Campi 213/B 41125 Modena - Italy http://algogroup.unimore.it/people/paolo/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 10/11] block-throttle: add a simple idle detection Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 07/11] blk-throttle: make throtl_slice tunable Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 08/11] blk-throttle: detect completed idle cgroup Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 06/11] blk-throttle: make sure expire time isn't too big Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 11/11] blk-throttle: ignore idle cgroup limit Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 09/11] block-throttle: make bandwidth change smooth Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 03/11] block-throttle: configure bps/iops limit for cgroup in high limit Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 01/11] block-throttle: prepare support multiple limits Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
[PATCH v3 02/11] block-throttle: add .high interface Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> - 2016-10-03 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-10-04 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 21:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 21:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-05 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-10-05 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-05 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-05 17:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-05 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-05 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-10-06 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-10-06 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 23:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-07 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-05 22:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 09:30 +0200
Fwd: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Kyle Sanderson <kyle.leet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 03:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-10-06 10:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-10-06 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-06 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Heinz Diehl <htd+ml@fritha.org> - 2016-10-08 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> - 2016-10-04 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-04 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> - 2016-10-04 21:00 +0200
csiph-web