Indeed I didn't specify what my project is about... My goal is to benchmark several QoS process schedulers, comparing them to the native kernel scheduler. I didn't, however, decided how will the benchmarking be done. Any sugestions?
On 7/29/05, Stephen Pollei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/29/05, Vitor Curado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You assumed right, Stephen: I'm interested in QoS process scheduling, > > sorry for not specifying it... > > > > I'm taking a deeper look at the qlinux, ckrm and the plugsched > > schedulers, if you have any more links, please send them to me... > Also you didn't specify what kind of clustering you are doing and for > what ultimate purpose. > > http://www.beowulf.org/ > http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/mpi/implementations.html > http://www.csm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html > http://www.open-mpi.org/ > > http://openmosix.sourceforge.net/ > http://www.mosix.org/ > > http://www.remote-dba.cc/teas_aegis_rac06.htm > http://www.dba-oracle.com/bp/bp_book1_rac.htm > Oracle DB Real Application Clusters (RAC) > transparent application failover (TAF) > > http://pgcluster.projects.postgresql.org/feature.html > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/replication.html > > High Availability (HA) > High Performance Computing (HPC) > > That can strongly effect what solutions you would want to look at. > For instance if you were running a render farm, or a scientific > compute beowulf cluster, then > your "scheduling" will be handled more in the MPI or PVM code perhaps. > The running processes themselves would most likely be using something > like SCHED_BATCH, with larger than usual time-slices. Maybe you > monitor how many mips actually get consumed and then adjust which > nodes get scheduled with what, or how many work units get handed out > to get back to fairness. > > clock_t times(struct tms *buf); > int getrusage(int who, struct rusage *usage); > to track system and user time is about on track, but I think someone > might be able to fool you, if thats all you could use to account for > cpu time taken from another userland process. > > So maybe you just need better reporting/accounting hooks and then you > can do the rest in userland? > > > On 7/28/05, Wes Felter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Vitor Curado wrote: > > > > I'm working on a research about QoS schedulers for Linux clusters. > > > > Moreover, the ideal would be that the scheduler is implemented > > > > altering the native kernel scheduler. I'm kind of having trouble to > > > > find such schedulers, can anybody help me out? > > > > > > http://lass.cs.umass.edu/software/qlinux/ > > > http://ckrm.sourceforge.net/ > > That qlinux one is new to me. I notice that the 2.6 kernel has support > for modular plugable disk I/O and network schedulers now. > So a Hierarchical Start Time Fair Queuing (H-SFQ) network packet > scheduler module could be made. > > I wonder how that Cello scheduler would stack-up to AS, Deadline, cfq, > noop, etc etc. > > The qlinux cpu scheduler would be best to use plugsched for use with 2.6.x > > -- > http://dmoz.org/profiles/pollei.html > http://sourceforge.net/users/stephen_pollei/ > http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=2455954990164098214 > http://stephen_pollei.home.comcast.net/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
