Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:01:50AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Bharata B Rao wrote: >> >>> 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 agree that guarantees are important, but I am not sure about > > 1. specifying both limits and guarantees for groups and > Why would you allow specifying a lower bound for cpu usage (a guarantee), and upper bound (a limit), but not both? > 2. not deriving guarantees from limits. > > Guarantees are met by some form of throttling or limiting and hence I think > limiting should drive the guarantees That would be fine if it didn't idle the cpu despite there being demand and available cpu power. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
