Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts

[Luke Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>]

Tejun Heo <tj@...> writes:

> 
> Hello, Tim.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:44:23AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:


> The goal is to reach sane and widely useable / useful state with
> minimum amount of complexity.  Maintaining backward compatibility for
> some period - likely quite a few years - while still allowing future
> development is a pretty important consideration.  Another factor is
> that the general situation has been more or less atrocious and cgroup
> as a whole has been failing in the very basic places, which also
> reinforces the drive for simplicity.

 was it einstein who said that something should be made as simple as
 it needs to be... but no simpler?
 
> That said, I stil don't know very well the scope and severity of the
> problems you guys might face from the loss of multiple orthogonal
> hierarchies.

 i think he made it very clear that it would be utterly catastrophic,
 with the cost being millions of dollars or more.

 the thing is, if you compare a "normal" company or individual user(s)
 needs, the numbers of such users may be large but each one has only
 one or a few machines.  but in this case, it's just "one person"
 (tim) saying "i represent hundreds of thousands of machines, here,
 being adversely affected by these discussions".

 so he feels that you *should* be lending far more weight to what he's
 saying *but*... see below...

> So, can you please explain the issues that you've experienced and are
> foreseeing in detail with their contexts?  ie. if you have certain
> requirement, please give at least brief explanation on where such
> requirement is coming from and how important the requirement is.

 well... that's the problem, tejun: he's not permitted to.  he's under
 NDA.  thus the "weighting" gets multiplied by... a number significantly
 less than 1e-5...  oops :)

 l.
 l.