I gave a simplistic example. In reality they have systems that are
mostly idle and want to be able to allocate fractional CPU values
to zones so for that FSS would be ideal. Using pools/psrsets the
smallest value you can allocate is 1, however thats not realistic
for a production environment -
This thread confused me at first, so I'll try to re-phrase the core issues to
check my current understanding. One issue is a general piece of confusion that
Solaris hands us, the other is a conflict of assumptions.
1) pset_getloadavg() (mentioned earlier in this thread) reports the load avg
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Thats how I came to the conclusion with the current implementation of
getting load averages coming from processor sets rather than the load
running within a zone prohibits the sole use of FSS to consolidate
sendmail servers. The only feasible solution
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I think you've captured the issues well here.
I do think that regardless of FSS preventing one zone from
consuming all the CPU, sendmail will still need to be able
to throttle itself until an SA comes in to re-provision the
resources and give the zone more CPU.
Why would
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I think you've captured the issues well here.
I do think that regardless of FSS preventing one zone from
consuming all the CPU, sendmail will still need to be able
to throttle itself until an SA comes in to re-provision the
resources and give the zone
Brian Kolaci wrote On 10/20/06 13:41,:
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Thats how I came to the conclusion with the current implementation of
getting load averages coming from processor sets rather than the load
running within a zone prohibits the sole use of FSS to consolidate
Brian It appears the load values obtained within a local zone are measured
Brian across the whole system rather than for just the processes within
Brian that local zone.
For all CPUs in whatever processor set sendmail is running in, which by
default would be the whole system.
Brian IHAC ...
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I've been discussing about how to chop up a machine. An possible example
configuration would have 8 cpus, 3 local zones. They would possibly be
divided up as 50%, 25% and 25%. Its clear how to do this with pools,
however FSS is a great fit for when a
Remember that FSS is designed to provide a minimum, but not a max.
Depending on CPU use by other threads in the class, a given thread may
get more than it's alloted CPU shares, but it will never get less.
/jim
Brian Kolaci wrote:
Jeff Victor wrote:
Brian Kolaci wrote:
I've been
Thanks, but I think we're getting off topic.
I know how FSS works and what its intended for, however the
issue isn't with FSS but more that the load averages as seen
within a zone are not based on the loads in the zone, but
rather to the pool to which the zone is associated with.
FSS isn't the
10 matches
Mail list logo
