Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider having sosreport place itself in a resource constrained cgroup before executing #242

Closed
portante opened this issue Mar 21, 2014 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@portante
Copy link
Contributor

Consider having sosreport place itself in a resource constrained cgroup before executing. On some systems, the amount of CPU and memory needed to perform the collection work can spike and become intrusive. If the admin could specify a cgroup constrained environment in which to run, they might feel more comfortable and not worry about sosreport impacting the system.

@adam-stokes
Copy link

Interesting request, however, isn't sosreport mostly diskio bound? What would throttling sosreport's IO for 30 seconds gain us?

@bmr-cymru
Copy link
Member

Right: I think we'd need to understand what we're trying to achieve with this. In my tests IO is typically dominant and sos currently uses buffered IO. Afaik the current cgroups blkio controller cannot isolate buffered writes so I don't think this can buy us a great deal. Coincidentally I was thinking about this last night and the work required to convert to O_DIRECT for archive IO so that we don't pollute the page cache during a run (cf. backup tools that use this). It's definitely non-trivial but may be something to work on in the long run.

The next question is how do we do this in a way that avoids imposing policy on administrators who already use cgroups; I'm not sure how we'd do this in a way that's unintrusive and does not conflict with existing system policy and configuration.

There's also a tradeoff here in terms of the time to complete a run vs. the load imposed on the system during the run. We need to be careful to ensure that any changes land us in a 'sweet spot' between the two extremes. If we miss that then we'll upset users either way ('sos takes too long' vs. 'sosreport ate my system').

@bmr-cymru bmr-cymru added this to the 3.2 milestone Apr 14, 2014
@adam-stokes adam-stokes modified the milestone: 3.2 Apr 15, 2014
@bmr-cymru bmr-cymru added high and removed low labels Apr 17, 2014
@bmr-cymru bmr-cymru self-assigned this Jun 16, 2014
@TurboTurtle
Copy link
Member

I am closing this out alongside #1844 - please see that issue for a more complete answer as to why and what has been investigated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants