I personally prefer the notion of layering the normal scheduler on top
of a simple fair-share scheduler. This would not add any overhead for
the non-jailed case. Complicating the process scheduler poses
maintenance, scalability, and general performance problems.
-Kip
On 6/11/06, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-Jun-11 14:50:30 +0200, Pieter de Goeje wrote:
>I suppose by limiting the jail CPU usage you mean that jails contending over
>CPU each get their assigned share. But when the system is idle one jail can
>get all the CPU it wants.
IBM MVS had an interesting alternative approach, which I believe was
part of the scheduler: You could place an upper limit on the CPU
allocated to a process. From a user perspective, an application would
respond in (say) 2 seconds whether the system was completely idle or
at normal load. This stopped users complaining that the system was
slow as the system got loaded. In the case of jailed systems, it
could also prevent (or minimize) traffic analysis of the system by a
jailed process.
--
Peter Jeremy
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
