In message <20060125201450.GE25397@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Jeremy wri
tes:
On Wed, 2006-Jan-25 20:09:54 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
We are therefore forced to try to divine the intent behind the text,
and as somebody who were around back in the eighties I can testify
that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU
instructions.
This implies that RDTSC (and equivalents) would be the best source of
accounting information, with CPU usage billed in CPU cycles used.
It's just users who expect to be billed in seconds.
Right, so we bill users in "full speed CPU second equvivalents"
Regardless of the technical merits of one accounting method or another,
changing the results of rusage is going to result in many years of
questions to the mailing lists and grumbling from uneducated sysadmins
that FreeBSD is somehow inferior because of this one detail. I know
that's an emotional argument and not a technical one, but it's also
important to consider.
Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches ... >>We are therefore forced to try to divine the intent behind the text, ... >>that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU ... with CPU usage billed in CPU cycles used. ... (freebsd-arch)
Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches ... and as somebody who were around back in the eighties I can testify that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU instructions.... changing the results of rusage is going to result in many years of questions to the mailing lists and grumbling from uneducated sysadmins that FreeBSD is somehow inferior because of this one detail. ... (freebsd-arch)
Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches ... >>We are therefore forced to try to divine the intent behind the text, ... >>that the intent was to be able to bill computer users for CPU ... with CPU usage billed in CPU cycles used. ... (freebsd-current)
