OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!
Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! [message #17741] Tue, 13 March 2007 02:25 Go to next message
Paul Menage is currently offline  Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
On 3/12/07, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
>
> why? you simply enter that specific space and
> use the existing mechanisms (netlink, proc, whatever)
> to retrieve the information with _existing_ tools,

That's assuming that you're using network namespace virtualization,
with each group of tasks in a separate namespace. What if you don't
want the virtualization overhead, just the accounting?

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! [message #17799 is a reply to message #17741] Tue, 13 March 2007 15:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Herbert Poetzl is currently offline  Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:25:48PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> >
> > why? you simply enter that specific space and
> > use the existing mechanisms (netlink, proc, whatever)
> > to retrieve the information with _existing_ tools,
> 
> That's assuming that you're using network namespace virtualization,

or isolation :)

> with each group of tasks in a separate namespace. 

correct ...

> What if you don't want the virtualization overhead, just the
> accounting?

there should be no 'virtualization' overhead, and what
do you want to account for, if not by a group of tasks?

maybe I'm missing the grouping condition here, but I
assume you assign tasks to the accounting containers

note: network isolation is not supposed to add overhead
compared to the host system (at least not measureable
overhead)

best,
Herbert

> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! [message #17865 is a reply to message #17799] Sat, 17 March 2007 01:40 Go to previous message
Paul Menage is currently offline  Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
On 3/13/07, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
>
> note: network isolation is not supposed to add overhead
> compared to the host system (at least not measureable
> overhead)

Does "network isolation" involve giving each network namespace a
separate IP address, etc? If so, that's something that some people
might not want (and specifically, that we don't want). If not, what
does it add over existing Linux traffic control (via tc)?

Thanks,

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Previous Topic: Summary of resource management discussion
Next Topic: + remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch added to -mm tree
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Oct 14 21:17:19 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05384 seconds