Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-04 Thread Tejun Heo
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:54:37AM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com): > > If this daemon works as advertised, we will explore moving all write > > traffic to use it. I still have concerns that this can't handle read > > traffic at the scale we need. > > > > Teju

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-04 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Tim. On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 08:53:21PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote: > If this daemon works as advertised, we will explore moving all write > traffic to use it. I still have concerns that this can't handle read > traffic at the scale we need. At least from the kernel side, cgroup doesn't and

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
And can somebody please fix up lxc-devel so that it doesn't generate "your message awaits moderator approval" notification on *each* message? :( -- tejun -- Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and h

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Serge. On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:03:44PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > As I communicated multiple times before, delegating write access to > > control knobs to untrusted domain has always been a security risk and > > is likely to continue to remain so. Also, organizationally, a > > Then

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:19:18AM -0800, Victor Marmol wrote: > > > >From my discussions with Tejun, he wanted to move to using inotify so it > > > may still be an fd we pass around. > > > > Hm, would that just be inotify on the memory.max_usage_in_bytes > > file, of inotify on a specific

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Tim. On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:58:09PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote: > Thanks for this! I think it helps a lot to discuss now, rather than > over nearly-done code. > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Additionally, Tejun has specified that we do not want users to b

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, guys. Sorry about the delay. On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:43:35PM +, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Additionally, Tejun has specified that we do not want users to be > too closely tied to the cgroupfs implementation. Therefore > commands will be just a hair more general than specifying cgroup

Re: [lxc-devel] cgroup management daemon

2013-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Ooh, can you also please cc Li Zefan when replying? Thanks. -- tejun -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance