Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:44:22 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 13:10 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On 9/21/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > The current fake numa support requires you to choose your node layout > > > at boot time - I've been working with 64 fake nodes of 128M each, > > > which gives a reasonable granularity for dividing a machine between > > > multiple different sized jobs. > > > > It still will not satisfy what OpenVZ/Container folks are looking for: > > 100s of containers. > > Right - so fake-numa is not the right solution for everyone, and I > never suggested that it is. (Having said that, there are discussions > underway to make the zone-based approach more practical - if you could > have dynamically-resizable nodes, this would be more applicable to > openvz).
It would still have the other issue you pointed, i.e the userspace being able to cope up with memory allocators dynamics.
> > But, there's no reason that the OpenVZ resource control mechanisms > couldn't be hooked into a generic process container mechanism along > with cpusets and RG.
Isn't that one of the things we are trying to avoid (each one having their own solution, especially when we _can_ have a common solution).
> > Paul --
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
| |