From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 28 14:58:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B263D16A420 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com) Received: from smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83C4E43D5D for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com) Received: (qmail 20798 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2006 14:58:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w2fzz0vc01.aah-go-on.com) (thomas.sparrevohn@btinternet.com@86.133.244.63 with plain) by smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2006 14:58:38 -0000 From: Thomas Sparrevohn To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:35 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <84017.1138351420@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <84017.1138351420@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601281458.37502.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> Cc: Alexander Leidinger , Ian FREISLICH , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:41 -0000 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