Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches

On Friday 27 January 2006 08:50, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> As a user from the 2.x days, i would much rather have the great increase
> of context switching performance than super accurate cpu accounting that
> i will never use. FreeBSD needs to focus on performance now.

Well - Both points are correct - In regards to the thermal issues - I believe 
we may encounter a movement towards "Infowatt accounting" - and in regards to 
accounting I think it is worth to understand the limitations and challanges 

I would rather have a "scaleable" accounting approach e.g. there are a number 
of other things that could be nice to have the ability to track - but that we 
most likely would not want enabled by default. I am thinking about VM stats 
etc.