> On Thursday 26 January 2006 06:06, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > > > I wonder how many people still bill for CPU time? I'd go for the > > faster context switches. > > > > Almost all major ITO's providers - From SUN, HP, IBM, EDS etc. has offerings > that in some shape or other uses a "Utility model" based upon some sort of > financial model based upon actual CPU/IO etc. usage - It is a major area now > and provides one of the corner stones in the movement towards "Public Utility > models" > > So it is very relevant as an area for general improvement and the "historical" > models are not really good enough, for further information take a look a > products as MicroMeasure etc. Good accounting is very important to some, but the issue of dealing with reduced clock speed is almost certainly of no issue when it comes to charging for computer use. I can't imagine any reason someone would be paying for CPU time on a processor not running "full out". The only time that this might be an issue is when thermal management takes over. I'd hope that thermal management would never kick in on a commercial compute server, but, if it did, the customer should, at least, only pay for the number of seconds the job would have run had it been properly cooled. (Actually, he should probably pay less as his time is also being wasted.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman_at_es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634Received on Fri Jan 27 2006 - 03:55:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:51 UTC