Erich Focht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can CKRM (as it is now) fulfil the requirements? > > I don't think so. CKRM gives me to some extent the confidence that I > will really use the part of the machine for which I paid, say 50%. But > it doesn't care about the structure of the machine.
Right. That's a restriction of the currently-implemented CKRM controllers. > ... > Can CKRM be extended to do what cpusets do? > > Certainly. Probably easilly. But cpusets will have to be reinvented, I > guess. Same hooks, same checks, different user interface... Well if it is indeed the case that the CKRM *framework* is up to the task of being used to deliver the cpuset functionality then that's the way we should go, no? It's more work and requires coordination and will deliver later, but the eventual implementation will be better. But I'm still not 100% confident that the CKRM framework is suitable. Mainly because the CKRM and cpuset teams don't seem to have looked at each other's stuff enough yet. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
