[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] CPU hard limits
    On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > Bharata B Rao wrote:
    >> But could there be client models where you are required to strictly
    >> adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing
    >> the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ?
    > That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and
    > guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that
    > works when you advance the bandwidth period.
    > I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something
    > derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they
    > can be used to provide SLAs).

    I agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about

    1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and
    2. not deriving guarantees from limits.

    Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think
    limiting should drive the guarantees.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-05 11:03    [W:0.022 / U:4.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site