From: Matthew Nuzum (matt.followers_at_gmail.com)
Date: Tue 23 Nov 2004 - 18:19:50 GMT
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:47 -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, [iso-8859-1] J?rn Engel wrote:
> > 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.
> ...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage?
This would be a cool thing. We could squabble over the details, but if
it did what you said above and left some room for tweaking I'll bet
people would be [even more] pleased [though we are already ecstatic now]
with the vserver project. Of course, I'm still using CTX 17, so I'm
pretty easy to please I guess.
I'd be curious to know what happens when there is contention for that
pool of RAM. I've got a nightly batch job that lasts 15 minutes but
uses most of the server's ram during the process. Right now, everything
works OK, but I suspect under this "vserver panacea edition" I would
have problems because idle vservers will be allocated their minimum ram
even though they don't need it.
I guess I could just allocate 4MB of RAM as the minimum or some other
small number to get the effect of what I do now... still, a bit thought
Keep up the interesting conversation and work,
-- Matthew Nuzum | Makers of âElite Content Management Systemâ www.followers.net | View samples of Elite CMS in action matt_at_followers.net | http://www.followers.net/portfolio/
Vserver mailing list