On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 13:26 -0400, Shailabh Nagar wrote: > Also maintenability, licensing, blah, blah. > Replicating the software stack for each service level one > wishes to provide, if avoidable as it seems to be, isn't such a good idea. > Same sort of reasoning for why containers make sense compared to Xen/VMWare > instances. >
Having a container per service level seems like an okay thing to me. > Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a > single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially > give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever > be achieved). What exactly you mean by limited recharging? As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that can be charged to any single container. And in this case moving a task to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory accounting pov. > But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will > also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow > middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task. > That is not true. It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc. You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap. -rohit ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
