Balbir Singh wrote: >> 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%. >> > > Excellent examples, we've covered them in the RFC, could you see if we > missed anything in terms of use cases? The real question is do we care > enough to build hard limits control into the CFS group scheduler. I > believe we should. > You only cover the limit part. Guarantees are left as an exercise to the reader. I don't think implementing guarantees via limits is workable as it causes the cpu to be idled unnecessarily. >>> 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. >> > > To be honest, I would disagree here, specifically if you start > comparing how you would build guarantees in the kernel and compare it > with the proposed approach. I don't want to harp on the technicality, > but point out the feasibility for people who care for lower end of the > guarantee without requiring density. I think the real technical > discussion should be on here are the use cases, lets agree on the need > for the feature and go ahead and start prototyping the feature. > I don't understand. Are you saying implementing guarantees is too complex? -- 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
