On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:49 -0800, Gerrit Huizenga wrote: > I think perhaps this could also be the basis for a CKRM "class" > grouping as well. Rather than maintaining an independent class > affiliation for tasks, why not have a class devolve (evolve?) into > a "container" as described here.
Wasn't one of the grand schemes of CKRM to be able to have application instances be shared? For instance, running a single DB2, Oracle, or Apache server, and still accounting for all of the classes separately. If so, that wouldn't work with a scheme that requires process separation. But, sharing the application instances is probably mostly (only) important for databases anyway. I would imagine that most of the overhead in a server like an Apache instance is for the page cache for content, as well as a bit for Apache's executables themselves. The container schemes should be able to share page cache for both cases. The main issues would be managing multiple configurations, and the increased overhead from having more processes around than with a single server. There might also be some serious restrictions on containerized applications. For instance, taking a running application, moving it out of one container, and into another might not be feasible. Is this something that is common or desired in the current CKRM framework? -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
