Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:17:10 -0400 | From | Shailabh Nagar <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [RFC] Revised CKRM release |
| |
Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >>I'd hate to see this in the kernel unless there's a very strong need >>for it and no way to solve it at a nicer layer of abstraction, e.g. >>userland virtual machines ala uml/umlinux. > > > User Mode Linux could definitely be an option for implementing > resource management, provided that the overhead can be kept > low enough.
....and provided the groups of processes that are sought to be regulated as a unit are relatively static.
> For these purposes, "low enough" could be as much as 30% > overhead, since that would still allow people to grow the > utilisation of their server from a typical 10-20% to as > much as 40-50%. >
In overhead, I presume you're including the overhead of running as many uml instances as expected number of classes. Not just the slowdown of applications because they're running under a uml instance (instead of running native) ?
I think UML is justified more from a fault-containment point of view (where overheads are a lower priority) than from a performance isolation viewpoint.
In any case, a 30% overhead would send a large batch of higher-end server admins running to get a stick to beat you with :-)
- 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/
| |