lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.098 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site