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

From: Jörn Engel (joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de)
Date: Tue 23 Nov 2004 - 17:18:54 GMT

On Tue, 23 November 2004 16:44:22 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> we could do CPU limits (similar to ulimit) but would
> you really want to limit a vserver to, let's say 1minute
> of CPU usage in total?

That's basically the same problem as with any shared resource
consumption. For networking, HTB is relatively close to what most
people want and I don't see how CPU is a much different resource.

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.

List could be longer, but everything else is details. Most
controversy will be over the question of how exactly to prioritize the
nicer users. But in the end, CPU-hogs will be limited to something
close to their lower bounds and nice users operate well below but can
get a lot more power in a burst, as least sometimes.

Yeah, code doesn't exist. The usual.


He who knows others is wise.
He who knows himself is enlightened.
-- Lao Tsu
Vserver mailing list

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 Tue 23 Nov 2004 - 17:19:19 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3