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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
