On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 08:09:32AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/28/2011 02:59 AM, Lei Li wrote:
Given that the XML is named <iotune> under <disk>, we should probably name the virsh command 'blkiotune' or 'disk-iotune', not 'blkiothrottle'.
Hi Eric, we used<iothrottle> first, I changed it since Daniel P. Berrange proposed<iotune> for per-disk element instead of<iothrottle> when we discussed at RFC V1.
The command 'blkiotune' already exist, supported the cgroups blkio-controller, which handles proportional shares and throughput/iops limits on host block devices, global to the domain, but blkio throttling is specified per-disk and can vary across multiple disks. They are different two mechanism.
So how about use<iothrottle> again? :)
For extensibility, I _don't_ want to hardcode 'throttle' into the name; the goal here is that we want this xml element to contain all tuning parameters that are appropriate for a single disk, which could be more than just throttling. So using 'virsh disk-iotune' sounds like the best name for the virsh side of the command.
I'd prefer 'blkdeviotune', so it is discoverable alongside blkiotune Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|