Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:31:04 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 12:06 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 14:48 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > > <snip> > > > >>> 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 > >> any > >> guarantee. > >> > > > > I wrote the example treating them as %, so 100 would be the total amount > > of memory. > > > OK. Then limiting must be done this way (unreclaimable limit/total limit) > A (15/40) > B (25/100) > C (35/100) > D (10/100) > E (20/50) > In this case each group will receive it's guarantee for sure. > > E.g. even if A, B, E and D will eat all it's unreclaimable memory then > we'll have > 100 - 15 - 25 - 20 - 10 = 30% of memory left (maybe after reclaiming) which > is perfectly enough for C's guarantee.
How did you arrive at the +5 number ?
What if I have 40 containers each with 2% guarantee ? what do we do then ? and many other different combinations (what I gave was not the _only_ scenario).
> > > >>> "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. > >> > > > > I agree with that, but the other way around (i.e provide guarantee for > > everyone by imposing limits on everyone) is what I am saying is not > > possible. > Then how do you make sure that memory WILL be available when the group needs > it without limiting the others in a proper way?
You could limit others only if you _know_ somebody is not getting what they are supposed to get (based on guarantee).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech --
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
| |