From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932142AbWFFI3Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 04:29:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751179AbWFFI3Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 04:29:24 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:7803 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751177AbWFFI3Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 04:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <44853BCA.4010009@sw.ru> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:24:42 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Vilain CC: Kirill Korotaev , Peter Williams , sekharan@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Srivatsa , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, Balbir Singh , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel , Kingsley Cheung , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Rene Herman Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps References: <20060526042021.2886.4957.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <20060526042051.2886.70594.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <661de9470605262348s52401792x213f7143d16bada3@mail.gmail.com> <44781167.6060700@bigpond.net.au> <447D95DE.1080903@sw.ru> <447DBD44.5040602@in.ibm.com> <447E9A1D.9040109@openvz.org> <447EA694.8060407@in.ibm.com> <1149187413.13336.24.camel@linuxchandra> <447FD2E1.7060605@bigpond.net.au> <447FECFD.8000602@openvz.org> <4484ABF9.50503@vilain.net> In-Reply-To: <4484ABF9.50503@vilain.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>I'm sorry, but nice never looked "nice" to me. >>Have you ever tried to "nice" apache server which spawns 500 >>processes/threads on a loaded machine? >>With nice you _can't_ impose limits or priority on the whole "apache". >>The more apaches you have the more useless their priorites and nices are... >> >> > > > Yes but interactive admin processes will still get a large bonus > relative to the apache processes so you can still log in and kill the > apache storm off even with very large loads. And how do you plan to manage it: to log in every time when apache works too much and kill processes? The managabiliy of such solutions sucks.. Kirill