From: Hubertus Franke (frankeh_at_watson.ibm.com)
Date: Fri 07 Nov 2003 - 22:11:30 GMT
Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
>
>
>
>>But, integrating CKRM and vserver might not add more value and provide
>>unneccessary burden for somebody that want sees value in only one of them.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Comments anybody ?
>>
>>
>
>Agreed. CKRM and vserver are orthogonal.
>
>Extremely useful together, but still orthogonal ;)
>
>
>
Yipp, there is also no need to change the syscall number, there will be
always collisions on
work in progress. Anybody consolidating such work can make the simple
change themselves.
For integration, our highest priority now is to get a complete version out.
Chandra nicely cleaned up the intial CKRM interfaces and provides a good
documentation
on how the system and components work together.
So everybody should take a look at that.
This is the time we need the feedback on these interfaces.
I'll go in over the weekend and put up a new page on http://ckrm.sf.net
for this phase
so that the patches and documentation are readily available for download....
Next will be to move the existing schedulers over one by one to get to
the complete solution..
-- Hubertus
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver