[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] Re: [RFC][patch 00/21] PID Virtualization: Overview and Patches
    On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:49 -0800, Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
    > I think perhaps this could also be the basis for a CKRM "class"
    > grouping as well. Rather than maintaining an independent class
    > affiliation for tasks, why not have a class devolve (evolve?) into
    > a "container" as described here.

    Wasn't one of the grand schemes of CKRM to be able to have application
    instances be shared? For instance, running a single DB2, Oracle, or
    Apache server, and still accounting for all of the classes separately.
    If so, that wouldn't work with a scheme that requires process

    But, sharing the application instances is probably mostly (only)
    important for databases anyway. I would imagine that most of the
    overhead in a server like an Apache instance is for the page cache for
    content, as well as a bit for Apache's executables themselves. The
    container schemes should be able to share page cache for both cases.
    The main issues would be managing multiple configurations, and the
    increased overhead from having more processes around than with a single

    There might also be some serious restrictions on containerized
    applications. For instance, taking a running application, moving it out
    of one container, and into another might not be feasible. Is this
    something that is common or desired in the current CKRM framework?

    -- Dave

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-15 21:05    [W:0.020 / U:242.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site