About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Sam Vilain (sam_at_vilain.net)
Date: Mon 22 Oct 2001 - 17:16:29 BST

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:58:56 -0500
Jacques Gelinas <jack_at_solucorp.qc.ca> wrote:

> The other flag impact the schedular. The priority of a process in a
> security context is controlled by the activity of all processes in
> the same security context. This produced some sort of fairness
> between the vservers. The first flag (lock) takes its importance
> here.

It should be more than a flag. It should be a priority. How much
weight does this context get in the scheduler?

Perhaps your per-s_context ulimit should be thought of as a
per-s_context "resources allocation". Resource allocation includes
weighted CPU scheduling, weighted disk IO scheduling, network device
bandwidth weighting (not necessarily in the same kernel data
structure; this one is probably better off done per-IP with QoS),
ulimits, quotas, etc.

You'd also want a program to run from s_context 0 to allow you to
modify the running virtual server's resources allocation.

ie, say you have two virtual servers - BATCH and INTERACTIVE. At 8pm,
BATCH's disk scheduling priority is raised to 4, and INTERACTIVE's to
1. So BATCH gets 80% of the disk time. Perhaps you still want
INTERACTIVE to have lots of CPU, so you set BATCH's CPU scheduling
priority to 3, and INTERACTIVE's to 7 at the same time.

   Sam Vilain, sam_at_vilain.net     WWW: http://sam.vilain.net/
    7D74 2A09 B2D3 C30F F78E      GPG: http://sam.vilain.net/sam.asc
    278A A425 30A9 05B5 2F13


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Wed 06 Nov 2002 - 07:03:38 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3