Rohit Seth wrote: >> 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? >
Memory allocated (and hence charged) by a task belonging to one container being (re)charged to another container to which task moves. Can be done but at too high a cost so not worth it most of the time. > 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. > For cpu time & I/O bandwidth I disagree. Accounting to a multiplicity of containers/BC over time shouldn't be costly. Anyway, lets see how the implementation evolves. > -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
