Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:27:55PM +0800, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-06-05 08:21:43]: >> >> >>> Balbir Singh wrote: >>> >>>>> But then there is no other way to make a *guarantee*, guarantees come >>>>> at a cost of idling resources, no? Can you show me any other >>>>> combination that will provide the guarantee and without idling the >>>>> system for the specified guarantees? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> OK, I see part of your concern, but I think we could do some >>>> optimizations during design. For example if all groups have reached >>>> their hard-limit and the system is idle, should we do start a new hard >>>> limit interval and restart, so that idleness can be removed. Would >>>> that be an acceptable design point? >>>> >>> I think so. Given guarantees G1..Gn (0 <= Gi <= 1; sum(Gi) <= 1), and a >>> cpu hog running in each group, how would the algorithm divide resources? >>> >>> >> As per the matrix calculation, but as soon as we reach an idle point, >> we redistribute the b/w and start a new quantum so to speak, where all >> groups are charged up to their hard limits. >> > > But could there be client models where you are required to strictly > adhere to the limit within the bandwidth and not provide more (by advancing > the bandwidth period) in the presence of idle cycles ? > That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that works when you advance the bandwidth period. I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they can be used to provide SLAs). -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
