OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices [message #7982 is a reply to message #7980] Wed, 01 November 2006 23:48 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Paul Menage is currently offline  Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote:
>
> I just thought I'd weigh in on this. As far as our usage pattern is
> concerned, guarantees cannot be met via limits.
>
> I want to give "x" cpu to container X, "y" cpu to container Y, and "z"
> cpu to container Z.

I agree that these are issues - but they don't really affect the
container framework directly.

The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register
any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it
shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits. Some
controllers won't even have this concept (cpusets doesn't really, for
instance, and containers don't have to be just to do with
quantitative resource control).

I sent out a patch a while ago that showed how ResGroups could be
turned into effectively a library on top of a generic container system
- so ResGroups controllers could write to the ResGroups interface, and
let the library handle setting up control parameters and parsing
limits and guarantees. I expect the same thing could be done for UBC.

Paul

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc3] VFS: extra check inside dentry_unhash()
Next Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Feb 18 18:04:26 GMT 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.43606 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers