Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030313AbWISAGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:06:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030318AbWISAGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:06:08 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:62592 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030313AbWISAGF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:06:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Pavel Emelianov Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , Srivatsa , CKRM-Tech , Dave Hansen , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <450E5F2E.2070809@openvz.org> 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> <1157730221.26324.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4501B5F0.9050802@in.ibm.com> <450508BB.7020609@openvz.org> <4505161E.1040401@in.ibm.com> <45051AC7.2000607@openvz.org> <1158000590.6029.33.camel@linuxchandra> <45069072.4010007@openvz.org> <1158105488.4800.23.camel@linuxchandra> <4507BC11.6080203@openvz.org> <1158186664.18927.17.camel@linuxchandra> <45090A6E.1040206@openvz.org> <1158277364.6357.33.camel@linuxchandra> <450A5325.6090803@openvz.org> <450A6A7A.8010102@sw.ru> <450A8B61.7040905@openvz.org> <450E5813.2040804@in.ibm.com> <450E5F2E.2070809@openvz.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:05:59 -0700 Message-Id: <1158624359.6536.17.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: 1700 Lines: 38 On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 12:56 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > The same for the limiting - either do not start new container, or > recalculate limits to meet new requirements. You may not take care of > guarantees as weel and create an overcommited configuration. > > And one more thing. We've asked it many times and I ask it again - > please, show us the other way for providing guarantee rather than > limiting or reserving. Why do we want the capability to be snipped at the infrastructure level. Let the controller writers decide how they want to provide the capability and the users to decide if they want to use the feature at a price. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/