> Yes. That is true, but it is by no means meant to be the end-all,
> be-all of CKRM.
All well and good. Except that it has taken me an inordinate amount of
effort to grok what CKRM is, and this mingling of a framework for
resource management with one particular instance of such, a fair share
scheduler, has contributed to my confusions. My teen age son can no
doubt offer additional explanations for my confusions.
And indeed, while a new kernel framework should come with at least one
good example of something worth so framing, still it's better to keep
the two clearly distinguished. If these two are well distinguished now,
then I am unaware of that.
Perhaps this effort to add a placement manager to the existing fair
share manager in CKRM's repetoire will result in a clearer separation of
the CKRM framework from that which it frames.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.650.933.1373
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
