Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751260AbWIHVQj (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:16:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751261AbWIHVQj (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:16:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:8022 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751260AbWIHVQi (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:16:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=BSdZ8LZWved0PLoGod/dj7CusXDgb05zO8b2lt7lnPdlnGWQpOPx0DdT4pzBMpsWY xIp8QODCwp2vemzAk048A== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Shailabh Nagar Cc: Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Andi Kleen , CKRM-Tech , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Hugh Dickins , Matt Helsley , Alexey Dobriyan , Oleg Nesterov , Alan Cox , Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <4501A7DD.8040305@watson.ibm.com> References: <44FD918A.7050501@sw.ru> <1157478392.3186.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157501878.11268.77.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1157729450.26324.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157735437.1214.32.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4501A7DD.8040305@watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:15:35 -0700 Message-Id: <1157750135.1214.94.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1533 Lines: 39 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/