Re: [Xen-users] Disk starvation between DomU's

[Thanos Makatos <thanos.makatos@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hmm. That didn't make a difference, but something else did. I was
> looking at the read column... Stupid mistake, but not so stupid as you
> might think. My eye was drawn to the changing figures, and now I see
> that write IO is always 0, according to iotop. When I do "iotop -oa"
> (accumulated, leave out non-active processes), all blkback processes
> that are appearing all accumulate 0 bytes written. I don't understand
> that...

Can you try "iostat -x 1" instead of iotop?

> That's correct. Currently, the RAID array is CFQ. I would seem weird to
> me to change that into noop. The RAID controller might schedule, but it
> can't receive instructions from the OS what should have priority. I'll
> look into it, though.

The rule of thumb is to let the RAID controller do the scheduling; otherwise 
the two schedulers may end "competing" with each other. Of course this depends 
on the RAID controller, the I/O workload etc. so it may make no difference in 
your particular case.

> I do know that the recommended DomU scheduler is noop. It's also the
> default for all my machines without configuring it. I guess they know
> they're virtual.

Not necessarily: using CFQ inside a VM would still make sense if you want to 
enforce I/O fairness among the applications running inside it, although this 
could potentially lead to weird interactions with the OS's/controller's I/O 
scheduler.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-users