linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:10:22 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	sekharan@...ibm.com
Cc:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, npiggin@...e.de,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction

On 9/21/06, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > The current fake numa support requires you to choose your node layout
> > at boot time - I've been working with 64 fake nodes of 128M each,
> > which gives a reasonable granularity for dividing a machine between
> > multiple different sized jobs.
>
> It still will not satisfy what OpenVZ/Container folks are looking for:
> 100s of containers.

Right - so fake-numa is not the right solution for everyone, and I
never suggested that it is. (Having said that, there are discussions
underway to make the zone-based approach more practical - if you could
have dynamically-resizable nodes, this would be more applicable to
openvz).

But, there's no reason that the OpenVZ resource control mechanisms
couldn't be hooked into a generic process container mechanism along
with cpusets and RG.

Paul
-
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/