On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:58AM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > Hi Jon! > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:08:31AM +0200, Jon Bendtsen wrote: > > Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > >To Potential Testers! > > > > > >updated the Context Quota Stuff to cq0.06 (and 2.4.22) > > >and added a per context Disk Limit dl0.02 to enable > > >virtual disk limits per context (per quota hash) ... > > > > i'm not really sure i understand why you and others spend so much time > > on the quota stuff. > > because there is a big? demand for this features ... > at least I think so ... 8-) > (hey providers, speak up now!)
maybe, i havent seen it, and it can be solved by other means. > > Because even if you install alot of services inside > > a vserver, i doubt that you'll use more than a max a GB, and proberly > > half. > > one of the advantages of vserver (and contexts) is > that they can share resources ... no provider will > build his system with 4G x 100 disk space only because > he sells up to 4G vserver spaces ... well, it is my belief that the content takes up more space than the system, and since i cant share the content, sharing the system is a minor issue. > > The stuff that takes up space is content, and that can NOT be > > shared across vservers. (personaly i use one LV from the LVM system > > for each vserver). > > but consider about 50-80MB per vserver shared ... > how many times does this fit into 2GB? 2G is a very very old harddisk. > > I would imagien that the stuff that limits how many vservers you can run > > on a single system is memory > > exactly, memory and cpu context switching ... > > > , though perhaps the new 64bit computers > > will change that, but then maybe cpu is the problem. How many vservers > > can you run at a production system anyway? 10? 100? 1000? > > if you use shared partitions and have many vserver > of the same kind (e.g. RH 8.0 or MDK 9.1) you can > have up to 100 vserver on a decent SMP hardware with > 2GB RAM but only 10-20 on separate partitions ... does it really share the memory? Why would it do that, is that because of COW (Copy On Write) ? > why? because they will map the non unified files > into memory (shared, cache, buffers ...) and you'll > fill up your RAM pretty fast ... Alright, this last argument convinces me. JonB
