On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, [iso-8859-1] J?rn Engel wrote: > What most people want in plain English: > o Every user gets some guaranteed lower bound. > o Sum of lower bounds doesn't exceed total resources. > o Most of the time, not all resources get consumed. Add them to the > 'leftover' pool. > o Users that demand more resources than their lower bound get serviced > from the leftover pool. > o Users that, on average, use less resources get a higher priority > when accessing the leftover pool. ...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage? Grisha
This would be a cool thing. We could squabble over the details, but if it did what you said above and left some room for tweaking I'll bet people would be [even more] pleased [though we are already ecstatic now] with the vserver project. Of course, I'm still using CTX 17, so I'm pretty easy to please I guess.
I'd be curious to know what happens when there is contention for that pool of RAM. I've got a nightly batch job that lasts 15 minutes but uses most of the server's ram during the process. Right now, everything works OK, but I suspect under this "vserver panacea edition" I would have problems because idle vservers will be allocated their minimum ram even though they don't need it.
I guess I could just allocate 4MB of RAM as the minimum or some other small number to get the effect of what I do now... still, a bit thought provoking.
Keep up the interesting conversation and work,
|
-- Matthew Nuzum | Makers of “Elite Content Management System” www.followers.net | View samples of Elite CMS in action [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.followers.net/portfolio/ |
_______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
