On 2015-10-19 14:15, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 19.10.15 17:37, Chris Bell (cwb...@narmos.org) wrote:
>I was mostly wondering about the env var issue you raised...
>
>>I also think it would be convenient in some cases to be able to use the
>>'Nice' and 'Private{Network,Devices,etc}' directives apply to an entire
>>slice. That way I can use slices to control, manage, and group related
>>services. (Example: I'd like to manage postfix and dovecot together in
>>system-mail.slice. I'd like to be able to use the slice to set exec
>>options
>>for both services. Then if I add another service to system-mail.slice,
>>it
>>would also automatically be constrained by the limits set in
>>system-mail.slice.)
>
>Use CPUShares= as per-slice/per-service/per-scope equivalent of
>Nice=.
>
>PrivateXYZ= otoh is very specific to what a daemon does, it's a
>sandboxing feature, and sandboxes must always be adjusted to the
>individual daemons. I doubt that this is something to support as
>anything but a service-specific knob.
>
>Lennart
Ok, so it seems like most of what I've been trying to implement is
available
in some form, just not how I was expecting. I'll take another look at
the
Resource Control directives and see how to adjust them for my needs.
It's
not as direct as I was hoping, but they seem like they'll do what I
need.
If I have a set of services that really need to be finely controlled I
should probably just run them in a container, and set limits for the
container. Will that work as I am expecting? Will a systemd-nspawn
container
respect CPUAffinity settings from the service override file?
CPUAffinity= is generally inherited down the process tree. Hence yes,
this will work. But do note that processes may freely readjust ther
own affinity using sched_setaffinity() at any time, and thus are free
to undo the setting. Hooking up cpuset with systemd as proposed this
is not possible anymore. Also, if you we hook up cpuset then it's easy
to readjust the cpuset stuff dynmaically at runtime.
Lennart
Ok, I think my best shot is to readjust my strategy with resource
management. I'm sure I can implement a solution with CPU Shares and CPU
usage limits. It doesn't seem like the Affinity option can be enforced
the way I had hoped, anyway.
Thanks for all the help!!
--Chris
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
