lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
From
Date
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 13:26 -0400, Shailabh Nagar wrote:

> Also maintenability, licensing, blah, blah.
> Replicating the software stack for each service level one
> wishes to provide, if avoidable as it seems to be, isn't such a good idea.
> Same sort of reasoning for why containers make sense compared to Xen/VMWare
> instances.
>

Having a container per service level seems like an okay thing to me.

> 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?

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.

-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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-08 23:19    [W:0.119 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site