![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 12:13 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
<snip>
> >> > Don't start the new container or change the guarantees of the existing
> > ones> > to accommodate this one :) The QoS design (done by the administrator)
> > should> > take care of such use-cases. It would be perfectly ok to have a container
> > that does not care about guarantees to set their guarantee to 0 and set
> > their limit to the desired value. As Chandra has been stating we need two
> > parameters (guarantee, limit), either can be optional, but not both.> If I set up 9 groups to have 100Mb limit then I have 100Mb assured (on
> 1Gb node)> for the 10th one exactly. And I do not have to set up any guarantee as
> it won't affect> anything. So what a guarantee parameter is needed for?
I do not think it is that simple since
- there is typically more than one class I want to set guarantee to
- I will not able to use both limit and guarantee
- Implementation will not be work-conserving.
Also, How would you configure the following in your model ?
5 classes: Class A(10, 40), Class B(20, 100), Class C (30, 100), Class D
(5, 100), Class E(15, 50); (class_name(guarantee, limit))
"Limit only" approach works for DoS prevention. But for providing QoS
you would need guarantee.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-09-11 20:53 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||