Balbir Singh wrote: >> 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. >> > > Yes, this feature needs to be configurable. But your use case for both > limits and guarantees is interesting. We spoke to Peter and he was > convinced only of the guarantee use case. Could you please help > elaborate your use case, so that we can incorporate it into RFC v2 we > send out. Peter is opposed to having hard limits and is convinced that > they are not generally useful, so far I seen you and Paul say it is > useful, any arguments you have or any +1 from you will help us. Peter > I am not back stabbing you :) > I am selling virtual private servers. A 10% cpu share costs $x/month, and I guarantee you'll get that 10%, or your money back. On the other hand, I want to limit cpu usage to that 10% (maybe a little more) so people don't buy 10% shares and use 100% on my underutilized servers. If they want 100%, let them pay for 100%. >> 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). >> > > Even limits are useful for SLA's since your b/w available changes > quite drastically as we add or remove groups. There are other use > cases for limits as well SLAs are specified in terms of guarantees on a service, not on limits on others. If we could use limits to provide guarantees, that would be fine, but it doesn't quite work out. -- 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
