From: jon+vserver_at_silicide.dk
Date: Fri 05 Sep 2003 - 18:11:09 BST
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:38:58AM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> Hi Jon!
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:08:31AM +0200, Jon Bendtsen wrote:
> > Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > >To Potential Testers!
> > >
> > >updated the Context Quota Stuff to cq0.06 (and 2.4.22)
> > >and added a per context Disk Limit dl0.02 to enable
> > >virtual disk limits per context (per quota hash) ...
> >
> > i'm not really sure i understand why you and others spend so much time
> > on the quota stuff.
>
> because there is a big? demand for this features ...
> at least I think so ... 8-)
> (hey providers, speak up now!)
maybe, i havent seen it, and it can be solved by other means.
> > Because even if you install alot of services inside
> > a vserver, i doubt that you'll use more than a max a GB, and proberly
> > half.
>
> one of the advantages of vserver (and contexts) is
> that they can share resources ... no provider will
> build his system with 4G x 100 disk space only because
> he sells up to 4G vserver spaces ...
well, it is my belief that the content takes up more space than
the system, and since i cant share the content, sharing the system
is a minor issue.
> > The stuff that takes up space is content, and that can NOT be
> > shared across vservers. (personaly i use one LV from the LVM system
> > for each vserver).
>
> but consider about 50-80MB per vserver shared ...
> how many times does this fit into 2GB?
2G is a very very old harddisk.
> > I would imagien that the stuff that limits how many vservers you can run
> > on a single system is memory
>
> exactly, memory and cpu context switching ...
>
> > , though perhaps the new 64bit computers
> > will change that, but then maybe cpu is the problem. How many vservers
> > can you run at a production system anyway? 10? 100? 1000?
>
> if you use shared partitions and have many vserver
> of the same kind (e.g. RH 8.0 or MDK 9.1) you can
> have up to 100 vserver on a decent SMP hardware with
> 2GB RAM but only 10-20 on separate partitions ...
does it really share the memory? Why would it do that, is that
because of COW (Copy On Write) ?
> why? because they will map the non unified files
> into memory (shared, cache, buffers ...) and you'll
> fill up your RAM pretty fast ...
Alright, this last argument convinces me.
JonB