Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:49:50 -0700 |
| |
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/
| |