On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 23:18 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:Mike Galbraith wrote:On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:55 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:These caps aren't trying to control aggregates but with suitable software they can be used to control aggregates.Chandra Seetharaman wrote:Similar in that they are both inherited. Very dissimilar in that theOn Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:04 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:"nice" seems to be doing quite nicely :-)Hi, 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?
To me this capping functionality is a similar functionality to that provided by "nice" and all that's needed to make it useful is a command (similar to "nice") that runs tasks with caps applied.
effect of nice is not altered by fork whereas the effect of a cap is.
Consider make. A cap on make itself isn't meaningful, and _any_ per
task cap you put on it with the intent of managing the aggregate, is
defeated by the argument -j. Per task caps require omniscience to be
effective in managing processes. That's a pretty severe limitation.
How? How would you deal with the make example with per task caps.