4 ms·
That's not completely accurate. Hardware & OSes have not been designed for heavy multi-tenancy, leading to (among other issues) cache interference. At Netflix [
by mochomocha 7y ago
That's not completely accurate. Hardware & OSes have not been designed for heavy multi-tenancy, leading to (among other issues) cache interference. At Netflix [1], we have to do quite a bit of work to undo that. Bigger orgs like Google have spent more than a decade improving the Linux scheduler in their own fork for similar reasons.
[1] https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/predictive-cpu-isolation-of-containers-at-netflix-91f014d856c7 https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/predictive-cpu-isolation...
- codeflo 7y agoVery interesting link, thanks. Obviously your use case goes way beyond running a standard Docker installation. It sounds like you really want the kernel to schedule containers instead of processes -- which it doesn't really do by default, hence my comment. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising, that you're able to get these clear performance gains from a highly optimized special-purpose scheduler. Still, I was a bit surprised. :) However, that's at the OS level. What can realistically be done at the hardware level? It must be possible in theory to design a CPU that's better at this kind of context switching, but I don't know if a new "computer company" really wants to go there.
- shaklee3 7y agoWhile that's true, this particular company doesn't seem to be targeting anything that would improve containers (OS optimizations, new CPU). So I think the OP was correct in that simply changing the BMC or making it more secure on boot won't affect containers.
- puzza007 7y agoI'd be surprised if they didn't leverage something like the SmartOS container capabilities https://www.joyent.com/smartos https://www.joyent.com/smartos