Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- From: Thomas Sparrevohn <Thomas.Sparrevohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:58:35 +0000
On Friday 27 January 2006 08:43, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <200601270232.12528.Thomas.Sparrevohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas
> Sparre
>
> vohn writes:
> >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"
>
> Should we also add that all these initiatives are spectacular commercial
> failures because users hate to buy rubberband by the inch ?
Thats true to some extent - however the fundamental idea - I don't see
anything wrong with - and I am not going into the "do'es and don't" of the
financials behind utility models - but it does look like that is the
direction everything is taking and a accounting model that allows better
understanding of whether is indeed viable would benefit everybody
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- From: Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Prev by Date: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Previous by thread: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Next by thread: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
