On Monday 30 October 2006 12:07 pm, Paul Menage wrote: > On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should > > design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for > > it I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In > > addition to the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the > > paradigm presented to the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users > > options they will never use. > > The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that > there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since > CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice > to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other > resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent > out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that > requires a hierarchy.
Hmm, ok. If someone is actually using it I'd say let's go ahead and implement it now. Dave McCracken ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
