On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 16:38 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering > > > in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how > > > does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of > > > % of resources. > > > > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %. > > Simple enough. > > But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got > 100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy > might look as follows. > > root > / | \ > T1 T2 g1 > > T1, T2 are tasks and g1 is the group needing 25% of root's resources. Now > number of tasks running in parallel to g1 will determine its effective % > and tasks come and go. So the only way to do this would be that move T1 > and T2 in a child group under root and make sure new tasks don't show up > in root. Which is exactly that the scheduler stuff does.. so tough luck for the sysad who can't grasp it. > Otherwise creating a group under root does not ensure that you get minimum > % of resource. It just makes sure that you can't get more than 25% of > % resources when things are tight. You never said anything about minimum resource guarantees in the initial problem statement. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
