thx for clarifying, very helpful. The approach you described could be really interesting. I was thrown off by Dragos' comment saying:
"What stops Openwhisk to be smart in observing the response times, CPU consumption memory consumption of the running containers ? Doing so it could learn automatically how many concurrent requests 1 action can handle." ...which in my mind would have implied a much higher level of complexity and traditional behavior than what you described. Dragos, did I misinterpret you? Thanks & best regards Michael From: Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 07/06/2017 01:04 PM Subject: Re: Improving support for UI driven use cases The prototype PR from Tyson was based on a fixed capacity of concurrent activations per container. From that, I presume once the limit is reached, the load balancer would roll over to allocate a new container. -r > On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Michael M Behrendt <michaelbehre...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > thx for checking. I wasn't referring to adding/removing VMs, but rather > activation contaIners. In today's model that is done intrinsically, while > I *think* in what Dragos described, the containers would have to be > monitored somehow so this new component can decide (based on > cpu/mem/io/etc load within the containers) when to add/remove containers. > > > Thanks & best regards > Michael
