From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Tue 23 Nov 2004 - 17:45:29 GMT
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 06:18:54PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 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.
ahem, maybe you should read up on the TokenBucket
stuff for CPU usage in linux-vserver ...
06.3. Token Bucket Extensions
or do you mean something different? if not, then
it's already implemented ;)
PS: what about linux-vserver CoW?
> He who knows others is wise.
> He who knows himself is enlightened.
> -- Lao Tsu
> Vserver mailing list
Vserver mailing list