Hi,

The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
to request-based dm-multipath:
o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.

This patch-set is not ready for inclusion to the upstream kernel,
but I'm posting now to hear comments from multipath related people.
Any comments are welcome.

This patch-set can be applied on top of 2.6.27-rc6 + Alasdair's
linux-next patches below + request-based dm patches(*).
dm-mpath-use-more-error-codes.patch
dm-mpath-remove-is_active-from-struct-dm_path.patch

(*) http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/12/100


Summary of the patch-set:
1/4: dm-mpath: add a path-selector interface
2/4: dm-mpath: add queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer (dlb)
3/4: dm-mpath: interface change for service-time oriented dlb
4/4: dm-mpath: add service-time oriented dynamic load balancer (dlb)

Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:38AM -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
> to request-based dm-multipath:
> o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
> o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.

Could we have separate Kconfig options to select them?

Alasdair
--
agk@redhat.com

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Hi Alasdair,

On 01/29/2009 12:37 AM +0900, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:38AM -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
>> to request-based dm-multipath:
>> o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
>> o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.
>
> Could we have separate Kconfig options to select them?

Sure.
I posted the new one rebased on top of 2.6.29-rc2:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00183.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00186.html

Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:

Hi Alasdair,

On 01/29/2009 12:37 AM +0900, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:38AM -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:

The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
to request-based dm-multipath:
o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.

Could we have separate Kconfig options to select them?


Sure.
I posted the new one rebased on top of 2.6.29-rc2:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00183.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00186.html



For the Kconfig help, is there something we could add to help people
know when to choose one or the other? Sort of like how the block layer
io scheduler (block/Kconfig.iosched) says one might be helpful for
desktops and one is useful for data bses?


--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Hi Mike,

Thank you for the comment.

On 01/30/2009 03:12 AM +0900, Mike Christie wrote:
> Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hi Alasdair,
>>
>> On 01/29/2009 12:37 AM +0900, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:38AM -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>>>> The following patches add the following 2 dynamic load balancers
>>>> to request-based dm-multipath:
>>>> o queue-length oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-queue-length.
>>>> o service-time oriented dynamic load balancer, dm-service-time.
>>>
>>> Could we have separate Kconfig options to select them?
>>
>> Sure.
>> I posted the new one rebased on top of 2.6.29-rc2:
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00183.html
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2009-January/msg00186.html
>>
>
> For the Kconfig help, is there something we could add to help people
> know when to choose one or the other? Sort of like how the block layer
> io scheduler (block/Kconfig.iosched) says one might be helpful for
> desktops and one is useful for data bses?

That's a good idea, but I don't have much information about that now.
To make such guide-line, we probably need lots of feedbacks from users.
(e.g. That may also depend on HW, not only work-load.)
So that is TODO in the future, I think.

Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel