lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] ksm: NUMA trees and page migration
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:07:15PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:53:10 -0800 (PST)
> > Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a KSM series
> >
> > Sanity check: do you have a feeling for how useful KSM is?
> > Performance/space improvements for typical (or atypical) workloads?
> > Are people using it? Successfully?
> >
> > IOW, is it justifying itself?
>
> I have no idea! To me it's simply a technical challenge - and I agree
> with your implication that that's not a good enough justification.
>
> I've added Marcelo and Gleb and the KVM list to the Cc:
> my understanding is that it's the KVM guys who really appreciate KSM.
>
KSM is used on all RH kvm deployments for memory overcommit. I asked
around for numbers and got the answer that it allows to squeeze anywhere
between 10% and 100% more VMs on the same machine depends on a type of
a guest OS and how similar workloads of VMs are. And management tries
to keep VMs with similar OSes/workloads on the same host to gain more
from KSM.

--
Gleb.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-29 12:42    [W:0.108 / U:1.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site