Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:28:23 -0400 | From | Shailabh Nagar <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) |
| |
Rohit Seth wrote:
>> Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a >> single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially >> give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever >> be achieved). > > What exactly you mean by limited recharging? >
Memory allocated (and hence charged) by a task belonging to one container being (re)charged to another container to which task moves. Can be done but at too high a cost so not worth it most of the time.
> As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that > can be charged to any single container. And in this case moving a task > to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory > accounting pov. > >> But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will >> also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow >> middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task. >> > > That is not true. It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc. > You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap. > For cpu time & I/O bandwidth I disagree. Accounting to a multiplicity of containers/BC over time shouldn't be costly.
Anyway, lets see how the implementation evolves.
> -rohit
- 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/
| |