Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:55 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: >> Chandra Seetharaman wrote: >>> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:04 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >>>> Hi, Kirill, >>>> >>>> Kirill Korotaev wrote: >>>>>> Do you have any documented requirements for container resource >>>>>> management? >>>>>> Is there a minimum list of features and nice to have features for >>>>>> containers >>>>>> as far as resource management is concerned? >>>>> Sure! You can check OpenVZ project (http://openvz.org) for example of >>>>> required resource management. BTW, I must agree with other people here >>>>> who noticed that per-process resource management is really useless and >>>>> hard to use :( >>> I totally agree. >> "nice" seems to be doing quite nicely :-) >> >> To me this capping functionality is a similar functionality to that >> provided by "nice" and all that's needed to make it useful is a command >> (similar to "nice") that runs tasks with caps applied. > > Similar in that they are both inherited. Very dissimilar in that the > effect of nice is not altered by fork whereas the effect of a cap is. > > Consider make. A cap on make itself isn't meaningful, and _any_ per > task cap you put on it with the intent of managing the aggregate, is > defeated by the argument -j. Per task caps require omniscience to be > effective in managing processes. That's a pretty severe limitation.
These caps aren't trying to control aggregates but with suitable software they can be used to control aggregates. Peter -- Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
