On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:00:40AM -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> >>Then, if you are a fat jabba, maybe you might end up getting rescheduled
> >>instead of getting more memory whenever you want it!
> >
> >thought about a simpler app
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
Then, if you are a fat jabba, maybe you might end up getting rescheduled
instead of getting more memory whenever you want it!
thought about a simpler approach, with a TB for the
actual page-ins, so that every page-in will consume
a token, and you get a nu
On Wed, 24 November 2004 15:58:01 +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:
>
> If you increase the priority of the administrative daemons to -19, then
> you will get what people *actually* want ;-) which is CPU time for
> administration to come before all normal activity on the system. Even
> with a load over 10
On Wed, 24 November 2004 14:02:07 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:01:47PM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:
>
> pages to be swapped out can not easily be assigned
> to a context, this is different for pages getting
> paged in ...
Or any page-fault done for the context, for that m
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:01:47PM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> >>...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage?
> >Oh, you could. But the general concept behind my unquoted list is a
> >renewing resource. Network throughput is renewing. Network bandwidth
Jörn Engel wrote:
...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage?
Oh, you could. But the general concept behind my unquoted list is a
renewing resource. Network throughput is renewing. Network bandwidth
usually isn't. With swapping, you can turn memory into cache and
locali
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 23 November 2004 19:08:50 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
I love it when someone else already did the work. ;)
Except when it's only partial. If implementation matches
documentation, the fixed lower bound is 0 (zero). That's pretty low.
Most people want to say something like "
On Tue, 23 November 2004 23:29:25 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> yep, but taking care that overbooking doesn't
> happen can be done in userspace, literally ...
>
> so a 'minimum' of available resources can be
> guaranteeed only if you limit all other contexts
> to 1.0 - Sum[max], which in turn,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:39:26PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 23 November 2004 19:08:50 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > I love it when someone else already did the work. ;)
>
> Except when it's only partial. If implementation matches
> documentation, the fixed lower bound is 0 (zero).
On Tue, 23 November 2004 19:08:50 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> I love it when someone else already did the work. ;)
Except when it's only partial. If implementation matches
documentation, the fixed lower bound is 0 (zero). That's pretty low.
Most people want to say something like "Ssh will alwa
On Tue, 23 November 2004 12:47:23 -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> ...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage?
Oh, you could. But the general concept behind my unquoted list is a
renewing resource. Network throughput is renewing. Network bandwidth
usually
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:47 -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, [iso-8859-1] J?rn Engel wrote:
> What most people want in plain English:
> o Every user gets some guaranteed lower bound.
> o Sum of lower bounds doesn't exceed total resources.
> o Most of the time, n
On Tue, 23 November 2004 18:45:29 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> ahem, maybe you should read up on the TokenBucket
> stuff for CPU usage in linux-vserver ...
>
> http://linux-vserver.org/Linux-VServer-Paper-06
> 06.3. Token Bucket Extensions
>
> or do you mean something different? i
> ...and the big challenge is - how do you apply this to memory usage?
oooh! I know! swap out those that are over limit to tape!
--
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
___
Vserver mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://li
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, [iso-8859-1] J?rn Engel wrote:
What most people want in plain English:
o Every user gets some guaranteed lower bound.
o Sum of lower bounds doesn't exceed total resources.
o Most of the time, not all resources get consumed. Add them to the
'leftover' pool.
o Users that demand
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 06:18:54PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 23 November 2004 16:44:22 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > we could do CPU limits (similar to ulimit) but would
> > you really want to limit a vserver to, let's say 1minute
> > of CPU usage in total?
>
> That's basically th
On Tue, 23 November 2004 16:44:22 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> we could do CPU limits (similar to ulimit) but would
> you really want to limit a vserver to, let's say 1minute
> of CPU usage in total?
That's basically the same problem as with any shared resource
consumption. For networking, H
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:00:06PM +0200, Andreea Gansac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am testing the linux vservers development release 1.9.3.
> I have 2 problems:
>
> 1. When I check the limits with vlimit I can't see any cpu resource:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6.9]# vlimit -c 4
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Andreea Gansac wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] util-vserver]# vlimit -c 49168 --cpu 30
vc_set_rlimit(): Success
If I run a process that does only while(1){} inside the vserver, the
cpu is used only 25%-30%.
If I'm not mistaken, this simply sets the cpu time to
Hi,
I am testing the linux vservers development release 1.9.3.
I have 2 problems:
1. When I check the limits with vlimit I can't see any cpu resource:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6.9]# vlimit -c 49167 --all -d
RSS N/A N/A
20 matches
Mail list logo
