Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:15:07 -0500 From: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches Message-ID: <9C3809F0-05C0-41A4-BD82-5CD8BA3B2A81@siliconlandmark.com> In-Reply-To: <43D9DECF.2060101@rogers.com> References: <20060127045553.F36B34503E@ptavv.es.net> <43D9DECF.2060101@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 27, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Good accounting is very important to some, but the issue of >> dealing with reduced clock speed is almost certainly of no issue >> when it comes to charging for computer use. I can't imagine any >> reason someone would be paying for CPU time on a processor not >> running "full out". >> >> The only time that this might be an issue is when thermal >> management takes over. I'd hope that thermal management would >> never kick in on a commercial compute server, but, if it did, the >> customer should, at least, only pay for the number of seconds the >> job would have run had it been properly cooled. (Actually, he >> should probably pay less as his time is also being wasted.) > > As a user from the 2.x days, i would much rather have the great > increase of context switching performance than super accurate cpu > accounting that i will never use. FreeBSD needs to focus on > performance now. These are my exact thoughts on the matter! Andy /* Andre Guibert de Bruet * 6f43 6564 7020 656f 2e74 4220 7469 6a20 */ /* Code poet / Sysadmin * 636f 656b 2e79 5320 7379 6461 696d 2e6e */ /* GSM: +1 734 846 8758 * 5520 494e 2058 6c73 7565 6874 002e 0000 */ /* WWW: siliconlandmark.com * DP Xeon 3.0-1MB/12GB/570GB */
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9C3809F0-05C0-41A4-BD82-5CD8BA3B2A81>