From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 12 00:15:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DCC16A473 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:15:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9E243D7B for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:15:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c220-239-19-236.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.19.236]) by mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5C0FOkm002397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:15:26 +1000 Received: from turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) by turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5C0FOmh033659; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:15:24 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k5C0FOFM033658; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:15:24 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:15:24 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: Pieter de Goeje Message-ID: <20060612001524.GD739@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <1A2863A3-21D6-4F38-AB98-BAB605507095@novusordo.net> <200606111450.31041.pieter@degoeje.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606111450.31041.pieter@degoeje.nl> X-PGP-Key: http://members.optusnet.com.au/peterjeremy/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Chris Jones Subject: Re: Jail-Aware Scheduling X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:15:46 -0000 On Sun, 2006-Jun-11 14:50:30 +0200, Pieter de Goeje wrote: >I suppose by limiting the jail CPU usage you mean that jails contending over >CPU each get their assigned share. But when the system is idle one jail can >get all the CPU it wants. IBM MVS had an interesting alternative approach, which I believe was part of the scheduler: You could place an upper limit on the CPU allocated to a process. From a user perspective, an application would respond in (say) 2 seconds whether the system was completely idle or at normal load. This stopped users complaining that the system was slow as the system got loaded. In the case of jailed systems, it could also prevent (or minimize) traffic analysis of the system by a jailed process. -- Peter Jeremy