On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:08, Paul Jackson wrote:
I don't know that these partitions would necessarily need their own scheduler, allocator and resource manager, or if we would just make the current scheduler, allocator and resource manager aware of these boundaries. In either case, that is an implementation detail not to be agonized over now.
It's not so much whether they NEED their own scheduler, etc. as whether it should be possible for them to have their own scheduler, etc. With a configurable scheduler (such as ZAPHOD) this could just be a matter of having separate configuration variables for each cpuset (e.g. if a cpuset has been created to contain as bunch of servers there's no need to try and provide good interactive response for its tasks (as none of them will be interactive) so the interactive response mechanism can be turned off in that cpuset leading to better server response and throughput).
Peter -- Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce
------------------------------------------------------- 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
