linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1157750135.1214.94.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:15:35 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	Shailabh Nagar <nagar@...son.ibm.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added	user
	memory)

On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 13:26 -0400, Shailabh Nagar wrote:

> Also maintenability, licensing, blah, blah.
> Replicating the software stack for each service level one
> wishes to provide, if avoidable as it seems to be, isn't such a good idea.
> Same sort of reasoning for why containers make sense compared to Xen/VMWare
> instances.
> 

Having a container per service level seems like an okay thing to me.

> Memory resources, by their very nature, will be tougher to account when a
> single database/app server services multiple clients and we can essentially
> give up on that (taking the approach that only limited recharging can ever
> be achieved). 

What exactly you mean by limited recharging?  

As said earlier, if there is big shared segment on a server then that
can be charged to any single container.  And in this case moving a task
to different container may not fetch anything useful from memory
accounting pov.

> But cpu atleast is easy to charge correctly and since that will
> also indirectly influence the requests for memory & I/O, its useful to allow
> middleware to change the accounting base for a thread/task.
> 

That is not true.   It depends on IO size, memory foot print etc. etc.
You can move a task to different container, but it will not be cheap.

-rohit


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/