[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> 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))
What's the total memory amount on the node? Without it it's hard to make
> "Limit only" approach works for DoS prevention. But for providing QoS
> you would need guarantee.
You may not provide guarantee on physycal resource for a particular group
without limiting its usage by other groups. That's my major idea.
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: 2006-09-12 19:19    [W:0.166 / U:7.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site