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 the same problem as with any shared resource > consumption. For networking, HTB is relatively close to what most > people want and I don't see how CPU is a much different resource. > > 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 more resources than their lower bound get serviced > from the leftover pool. > o Users that, on average, use less resources get a higher priority > when accessing the leftover pool. > > List could be longer, but everything else is details. Most > controversy will be over the question of how exactly to prioritize the > nicer users. But in the end, CPU-hogs will be limited to something > close to their lower bounds and nice users operate well below but can > get a lot more power in a burst, as least sometimes. > > Yeah, code doesn't exist. The usual.
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? if not, then it's already implemented ;) best, Herbert PS: what about linux-vserver CoW? > Jörn > > -- > He who knows others is wise. > He who knows himself is enlightened. > -- Lao Tsu > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver