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>