Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030369AbWIMBNQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:13:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030479AbWIMBNQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:13:16 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:18322 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030369AbWIMBNP (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:13:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Rik van Riel , vatsa@in.ibm.com, Alan Cox , CKRM-Tech , balbir@in.ibm.com, Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <1158108203.20211.52.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> References: <44FD918A.7050501@sw.ru> <44FDAB81.5050608@in.ibm.com> <44FEC7E4.7030708@sw.ru> <44FF1EE4.3060005@in.ibm.com> <1157580371.31893.36.camel@linuxchandra> <45011CAC.2040502@openvz.org> <1157743424.19884.65.camel@linuxchandra> <1157751834.1214.112.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1157999107.6029.7.camel@linuxchandra> <1158001831.12947.16.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <20060912104410.GA28444@in.ibm.com> <1158081752.20211.12.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158105732.4800.26.camel@linuxchandra> <1158108203.20211.52.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:13:10 -0700 Message-Id: <1158109991.4800.43.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 43 On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:43 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > It won't be a complete solution, as the user won't be able to > > - set both guarantee and limit for a resource group > > - use limit on some and guarantee on some > > - optimize the usage of available resources > > I think, if we have some of the dynamic resource limit adjustments > possible then some of the above functionality could be achieved. And I > think that could be a good start point. Yes, dynamic resource adjustments should be available. But, you can't expect the sysadmin to sit around and keep tweaking the limits so as to achieve the QoS he wants. (Even if you have an application sitting and doing it, as I pointed in other email it may not be possible for different scenarios). > > -rohit > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 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/