Hubertus Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marc, cpusets lead to physical isolation.
Despite what Paul says, his customers *do not* "require" physical isolation [*]. That's like an accountant requiring that his spreadsheet be written in Pascal. He needs slapping. Isolation is merely the means by which cpusets implements some higher-level customer requirement. I want to see a clearer description of what that higher-level requirement is. Then I'd like to see some thought put into whether CKRM (with probably a new controller) can provide a good-enough implementation of that requirement. Coming at this from the other direction: CKRM is being positioned as a general purpose resource management framework, yes? Isolation is a simple form of resource management. If the CKRM framework simply cannot provide this form of isolation then it just failed its first test, did it not? [*] Except for the case where there is graphics (or other) hardware close to a particular node. In that case it is obvious that CPU-group pinning is the only way in which to satisfy the top-level requirement of "make access to the graphics hardware be efficient". ------------------------------------------------------- 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
