Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:50:23 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com, Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za>, arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches Message-ID: <43D9DECF.2060101@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <20060127045553.F36B34503E@ptavv.es.net> References: <20060127045553.F36B34503E@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43D9DECF.2060101>