| Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7928] |
Mon, 30 October 2006 18:07  |
Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should
> design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for it
> I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In addition to
> the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the paradigm presented to
> the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users options they will never
> use.
The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that
there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since
CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice
to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other
resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent
out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that
requires a hierarchy.
Paul
|
|
|
|
| Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7929 is a reply to message #7928] |
Mon, 30 October 2006 20:41  |
Paul Jackson
Messages: 157
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> I believe that
> there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?)
Yes. For example a common usage pattern has the system admin carve
off a big chunk of CPUs and Memory Nodes into a cpuset for the batch
scheduler to manage, within which the batch scheduler creates child
cpusets, roughly one for each job under its control.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
|
|
|
|
| Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7938 is a reply to message #7928] |
Mon, 30 October 2006 18:12 |
Dave McCracken
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Monday 30 October 2006 12:07 pm, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should
> > design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for
> > it I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In
> > addition to the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the
> > paradigm presented to the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users
> > options they will never use.
>
> The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that
> there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since
> CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice
> to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other
> resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent
> out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that
> requires a hierarchy.
Hmm, ok. If someone is actually using it I'd say let's go ahead and implement
it now.
Dave McCracken
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
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&b id=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
