Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 17:17 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> I'm wondering why not have different processes to serve different
> domains on the same physical server...particularly when they have
> different database to work on.

This is largely because this is I think how it is done today, and it has
a lot of disadvantages.  They also want to be able to account for
traffic on the same database.  Think of a large web hosting environment
where you charged everyone (hundreds or thousands of users) by CPU and
I/O bandwidth used at all levels of a given transaction.

> Is the amount of memory that you save by
> having a single copy that much useful that you are even okay to
> serialize the whole operation (What would happen, while the request for
> foo.com is getting worked on, there is another request for
> foo_bar.com...does it need to wait for foo.com request to get done
> before it can be served).

Let's put it this way.  Enterprise databases can be memory pigs.  It
isn't feasible to run hundreds or thousands of copies on each machine.  

-- Dave