[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: Is QoS of virtual disk not necessary?
Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Therefore, I think that it is better to develop OS-agnostic I/O control. > > Another nice thing would be that if we do not use CFQ then we do not need a > kernel thread per VBD. It would be probably easy to extend CFQ2 to use an user passed identifier instead of per task for sharing if that's your goal. For a kernel driver like blkback you could just switch around multiple current->io_contexts. And if CFQ2 can manage hundreds of processes I don't see why it couldn't manage hundreds of guests. Although you probably should not put that many on a single device anyways; or rather if it's a single device for that many it's likely a RAM backed big storage box that doesn't need much scheduling anyways. The claim that CFQ2 is desktop oriented in this thread earlier is also not true. The desktop oriented scheduler is more AS and CFQ2 is widely and successfully used in server applications. -Andi _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |