Devon H. O'Dell <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Given the feedback from the list, I've come up with two alternatives. > (Well, one of them was actually Mechiel's brainchild). > > Idea #1 (From Mechiel) > [snipped] > Maybe it's just the packet shifter in me, but could not the ideas of Token Buckets[1], Random Early Detection[2], Weighted Fair Queuing[3] and such be applied to memory/cpu resource allocation?
You would have to replace terms like 'bandwidth' with something like 'free memory' but it would end up resulting in a fair system that usually means fewer knobs for sysadmins to tweak? Probably the only knobs the sysadin would want to tweak in the end is resources that would be considered reserved/guarenteed availability[4] to backplane (aka critical OS-esque) systems? So you could say "no matter what a mess some user made of my system, I want to be always able to get to 10% of the RAM/CPU time". I can imagine the WFQ being helpful in something that blocks requests for more memory in chunks of time that grows expotentially with the amount of memory that has already been allocated. The win would be you can mix big resource users with the lightweight ones on the same CPU servers...would you not? The knobs for tweaking would be be more to scaling factors rather than limits/caps. I'll now go back to lurking... :) Cheers [1] http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-24.htm [2] http://www.opalsoft.net/qos/DS-26.htm [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_fair_queuing [4] in the packet shifting world it's called Expedited Forwarding (EF) -- Alexander Clouter .sigmonster says: What does it mean if there is no fortune for you?
