On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 09:26 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:Chandra Seetharaman wrote:On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:04 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:But you don't need something as complex as CKRM either. This cappingHi, Kirill,I totally agree.
Kirill Korotaev wrote:Do you have any documented requirements for container resource management?Sure! You can check OpenVZ project (http://openvz.org) for example of required resource management. BTW, I must agree with other people here who noticed that per-process resource management is really useless and hard to use :(
Is there a minimum list of features and nice to have features for containers
as far as resource management is concerned?I'll take a look at the references. I agree with you that it will be useful
to have resource management for a group of tasks.
All CKRM^W Resource Groups does is to group unrelated/related tasks to a
group and apply resource limits.
functionality coupled with (the lamented) PAGG patches (should have been called TAGG for "task aggregation" instead of PAGG for "process aggregation") would allow you to implement a kernel module that could apply caps to arbitrary groups of tasks.
I do not follow how PAGG + this cap feature can be used to put cap of
related/unrelated tasks. Can you provide little more explanation,
please.
Also, i do not think it can provide guarantees to that group of tasks.
can it ?