"The following subscription-only content has been made available to you by an LWN subscriber." Eh?Not wishing to let any cats out of their subscription bag, I checked with the editor and he said it's ok to blog the link.
So, with permission, some highlights :
- Google's way of doing things is far from ideal.
- As much as 3/4 of Google's code consists of changes to the core Linux kernel.
- In the area of CPU scheduling, Google found the move to the completely fair scheduler (CFS) to be painful.
- Work is segmented into three classes: "latency sensitive," which gets short-term resource guarantees, "production batch" which has guarantees over longer periods, and "best effort" which gets no guarantees at all.
- A lot of Google's code is there for (performance) monitoring.
3 comments:
A lot of PCs running their business and I
bet no easy life in keeping all these
running together and measuring them.
Good point they have a performance monitoring in place, but wonder how are they analysing and managing the power
consumption used by these PCs ? Probable
they are looking into:
- consolidation
- workload management
GCaP is one way to attack all these issues.
A lot of PCs running their business and I
bet no easy life in keeping all these
running together and measuring them.
Good point they have a performance monitoring in place, but wonder how are they analysing and managing the power
consumption used by these PCs ? Probable
they are looking into:
- consolidation
- workload management
GCaP is one way to attack all these issues.
Those tens of thousands of "PCs" are actually blades.
Post a Comment