On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:31:22PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> -----
>
> From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:20:58 +0200
> To: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] A software architecture for the FreedomBox
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> Reply-To: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
> On 11-04-13 at 05:49pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 05:06:23PM +0200, Rob van der Hoeven wrote:
> > > One of the first things you have to do when building a
> > > system like the FreedomBox is figure out the software
> > > architecture. I have come up with an interesting
> > > architecture that is made of Linux Containers (Virtual
> > Using Linux vserver guests for service separation (jails on
> > steroids) is an excellent idea, actually.
> I find it interesting, but am sceptical: I believe each
> jail consume separate memory for their libraries - i.e.
> cannot benefit from shared libraries. So I worry about memory
> consumption.
mainly depends on the guest setup, assuming that the
guests use identical libraries and the on disk data
is properly unified, then both, the inode cache and
the page mappings will use the very same memory
> On a related note I want to keep low the number of used library
> environments - e.g. try to aim for...
> * only one of libssl or gnutls fewest possible of Python,
> * Perl, Bash, Ruby, PHP
> ...especially for things running as daemons, but also for e.g.
> cron-triggered scripts, as even temporary required memory might
> not be available.
sounds like a sane approach ... even the best sharing
cannot help if you share huge amounts of data :)
> I notice the test system uses swap. That is bad if using
> internal flash disks as they wear much faster that way, and
> swapping onto an external harddisk is not user-friendly:
> Treating it as hot-plug then not only risk roccupting the data
> files potentially being in the middle of a transaction but
> crashes the whole system!
why not simply turn swap off, there is no real need
nowadays to enable swap, and if you really care to
avoid OOM situations alltogether, disable memory
overcommitment as well
> - Jonas
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Received on Wed Apr 13 21:40:43 2011