consider adding flag to constrain cpu/mem for non-k8s use cases

[egernst]

Which feature do you think can be improved?

In Kubernetes, the sandbox is constrained for memory and CPUs by Kubelet. Utilizing RuntimeClass, this is setup to take the overhead of running a Kata based sandbox into account. As a result Kata does not constrain these cgroups.

For non-K8S use cases, it may be desirable to constrain on the host based on CPU/memory requests. It would be up to the end user to size their workloads to be appropriate for running in a Kata sandbox.

How can it be improved?

Add a knob in our config.toml that allows a user to enable cpu/memory cgroup management on host. This should default to disabled.

[fidencio]

---

This issue is being automatically closed as Kata Containers 1.x has now reached EOL (End of Life). This means it is no longer being maintained.

Important:

All users should switch to the latest Kata Containers 2.x release to ensure they are using a maintained release that contains the latest security fixes, performance improvements and new features.

This decision was discussed by the @kata-containers/architecture-committee and has been announced via the Kata Containers mailing list:

• http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/2020-November/001601.html
• http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/2021-April/001843.html
• http://lists.katacontainers.io/pipermail/kata-dev/2021-May/001896.html

If you believe this issue still applies to Kata Containers 2.x, please open an issue against the Kata Containers 2.x repository, pointing to this one, providing details to allow us to migrate it.

---