Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) | From | Chandra Seetharaman <> | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:10:18 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:39 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: <snip> > > yes, it would be there, but is not heavy, IMO. > > I think anything greater than 1% could be a concern for people who are > not very interested in containers but would be forced to live with them.
If they are not interested in resource management and/or containers, i do not think they need to pay. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And anything running outside a container should be limited by default > > > > > Linux settings. > > > > > > > > note that the resource available to the default RG will be (total system > > > > resource - allocated to RGs). > > > > > > I think it will be preferable to not change the existing behavior for > > > applications that are running outside any container (in your case > > > default resource group). > > > > hmm, when you provide QoS for a set of apps, you will affect (the > > resource availability of) other apps. I don't see any way around it. Any > > ideas ? > > When I say, existing behavior, I mean not getting impacted by some > artificial limits that are imposed by container subsystem. IOW, if a
That is what I understood and replied above. > sysadmin is okay to have certain apps running outside of container then > he is basically forgoing any QoS for any container on that system.
Not at all. If the container they are interested in is guaranteed, I do not see how apps running outside a container would affect them.
<snip> > > > > Not really. > > > > - Each RG will have a guarantee and limit of each resource. > > > > - default RG will have (system resource - sum of guarantees) > > > > - Every RG will be guaranteed some amount of resource to provide QoS > > > > - Every RG will be limited at "limit" to prevent DoS attacks. > > > > - Whoever doesn't care either of those set them to don't care values. > > > > > > > > > > For the cases that put this don't care, do you depend on existing > > > reclaim algorithm (for memory) in kernel? > > > > Yes. > > So one container with these don't care condition(s) can turn the whole > guarantee thing bad. Because existing kernel reclaimer does not know > about memory commitments to other containers. Right?
No, the reclaimer would free up pages associated with the don't care RGs ( as the user don't care about the resource made available to them).
<snip> > > > If the limits are set appropriately so that containers total memory > > > consumption does not exceed the system memory then there shouldn't be > > > any QoS issue (to whatever extent it is applicable for specific > > > scenario). > > > > Then you will not be work-conserving (IOW over-committing), which is one > > of the main advantage of this type of feature. > > > > If for the systems where QoS is important, not over-committing will be > fine (at least to start with).
The problem is that you can't do it with just limit.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
| |