Messages in this thread | | | From | Nikhil Rao <> | Date | Thu, 12 May 2011 10:30:56 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 00/19] Increase resolution of load weights |
| |
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:29 -0700, Nikhil Rao wrote: >> > It's a cost/benefit analysis and for 32-bit systems the benefits seem to be >> > rather small, right? >> > >> >> Yes, that's right. The benefits for 32-bit systems do seem to be limited. > > deep(er) hierarchies on 32 bits still require this, it would be good to > verify that the cgroup mess created by the insanity called libvirt will > indeed work as expected. >
I went through the libvirt docs and from what I understand, it creates a hierarchy which is about 3 levels deep and has as many leaf nodes as guest VMs.
Taking this graphic from http://berrange.com/posts/2009/12/03/using-cgroups-with-libvirt-and-lxckvm-guests-in-fedora-12/
$ROOT | +- libvirt (all virtual machines/containers run by libvirtd) | +- lxc (all LXC containers run by libvirtd) | | | +- guest1 (LXC container called 'guest1') | +- guest2 (LXC container called 'guest2') | +- guest3 (LXC container called 'guest3') | +- ... (LXC container called ...) | +- qemu (all QEMU/KVM containers run by libvirtd) | +- guest1 (QENU machine called 'guest1') +- guest2 (QEMU machine called 'guest2') +- guest3 (QEMU machine called 'guest3') +- ... (QEMU machine called ...)
Assuming the tg shares given to libvirt, lxc and qemu containers are the defaults, the load balancer should be able to deal with the current resolution on 32-bit. Back of the envelope calculations using that approach I mentioned earlier (i.e. log_b(1024/NR_CPU)) says you need > 64 VMs before you run out of resolution. I think that might be too much to expect from a 8-cpu 32-bit machine ;-)
-Thanks, Nikhil
| |