User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Confused as to the point of this.

Confused as to the point of this.

Posted Jun 24, 2013 16:25 UTC (Mon) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
In reply to: Confused as to the point of this. by SEJeff
Parent article: Changes coming for systemd and control groups

libcgroup will probably not be part of the picture in the long run. In a single-writer scheme there's no room for anybody else changing the tree at all, hence libcgroup's job is basically history then.


(Log in to post comments)

Confused as to the point of this.

Posted Jun 24, 2013 21:20 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Why? I'd really like to be able to create my own subtree and manage it as I see fit. I don't really care how this tree is managed in the global hierarchy.

For example, I might want to run Fedora 19 with systemd in a namespaced container.

Also, how systemd interface is it going to be exposed to containers? Is the attack surface small enough?

Confused as to the point of this.

Posted Jun 25, 2013 18:05 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]

Ok thats fine. What is the answer for HPC users who know how to carve up their resources manually and apply things like CPU isolation/bind numa nodes to specific cpusets? The Linux kernel and systemd can guess right for the 90% use case, but for users who like systemd and still want to carve up the last 10% of their system, how will that be made possible?

I'm just trying to understand what my future will entail as one of those said HPC peeps.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds