Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:35 +0000
From:      Thomas Sparrevohn <Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com>
To:        "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
Message-ID:  <200601281458.37502.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <84017.1138351420@critter.freebsd.dk>
References:  <84017.1138351420@critter.freebsd.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 27 January 2006 08:43, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <200601270232.12528.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com>, Thomas
> Sparre
>
> vohn writes:
> >On Thursday 26 January 2006 06:06, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> >> I wonder how many people still bill for CPU time?  I'd go for the
> >> faster context switches.
> >
> >Almost all major ITO's providers - From SUN, HP, IBM, EDS etc. has
> > offerings that in some shape or other uses a "Utility model" based upon
> > some sort of financial model based upon actual CPU/IO etc. usage - It is
> > a major area now and provides one of the corner stones in the movement
> > towards "Public Utility models"
>
> Should we also add that all these initiatives are spectacular commercial
> failures because users hate to buy rubberband by the inch ?

Thats true to some extent - however the fundamental idea - I don't see 
anything wrong with - and I am not going into the "do'es and don't" of the 
financials behind utility models - but it does look like that is the 
direction everything is taking and a accounting model that allows better 
understanding of whether is indeed viable would benefit everybody 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601281458.37502.Thomas.Sparrevohn>