On 12/15/2015 12:23 PM, Satish Patel wrote:
If i enable "NUMATopologyFilter", Does JUNO support pinning?
FYI, i am following this link:
http://redhatstackblog.redhat.com/2015/05/05/cpu-pinning-and-numa-topology-awareness-in-openstack-compute/
Ah, sorry. I think that pinning only properly sup
Can we do this on JUNO? I badly need that?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Chris Friesen
wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 12:23 PM, Satish Patel wrote:
>>
>> If i enable "NUMATopologyFilter", Does JUNO support pinning?
>>
>> FYI, i am following this link:
>>
>> http://redhatstackblog.redhat.com/2015/05/0
Long story short, i want my VM have dedicated CPU and it has to be
1-0-1 map. because i am running VoIP application and i need CPU
dedicate to guest VM. what i should do?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Arne Wiebalck wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying the terminology, Chris, that’s helpful!
>
> My
If you specify "vcpu_pin_set=2,3,6,7" in /etc/nova/nova.conf then nova will
limit the VMs to run on that subset of host CPUs. This involves pinning from
libvirt, but isn't really considered a "dedicated" instance in nova.
By default, instances that can run on all of the allowed host CPUs are
If i enable "NUMATopologyFilter", Does JUNO support pinning?
FYI, i am following this link:
http://redhatstackblog.redhat.com/2015/05/05/cpu-pinning-and-numa-topology-awareness-in-openstack-compute/
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Satish Patel wrote:
> @chris,
>
> I already have "hw:cpu_poli
@chris,
I already have "hw:cpu_policy": "dedicated"
[root@control ~(keystone_admin)]# nova flavor-show 8
++-+
| Property | Value
|
Thanks for clarifying the terminology, Chris, that’s helpful!
My two points about performance were:
- without overcommit, an instance confined in a NUMA node does not profit from
1-to-1 pinning (at least from what we saw);
- an instance spanning multiple NUMA nodes needs to be aware of the topolo
What was configured was pinning to a set and that is reflected, no? Or is that
not referred to as “pinning”?
Anyway, for performance we didn’t see a difference between 1:1 pinning and
confining (?) the vCPUs to a
a set as long as the instance is aware of the underlying NUMA topology.
Cheers,
Ar
Actually no, I don't think that's right. When pinning is enabled each vCPU will
be affined to a single host CPU. What is showing below is what I would expect
if the instance was using non-dedicated CPUs.
To the original poster, you should be using
'hw:cpu_policy': 'dedicated'
in your flavor
The pinning seems to have done what you asked for, but you probably
want to confine your vCPUs to NUMA nodes.
Cheers,
Arne
> On 15 Dec 2015, at 16:12, Satish Patel wrote:
>
> Sorry forgot to reply all :)
>
> This is what i am getting
>
> [root@compute-1 ~]# virsh vcpupin instance-0043
>
Sorry forgot to reply all :)
This is what i am getting
[root@compute-1 ~]# virsh vcpupin instance-0043
VCPU: CPU Affinity
--
0: 2-3,6-7
1: 2-3,6-7
Following numa info
[root@compute-1 ~]# numactl --hardware
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 3 5 6
The pinning we set up goes indeed into the block:
—>
32
32768
…
<—
What does “virsh vcpupin ” give for your instance?
Cheers,
Arne
> On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:02, Satish Patel wrote:
>
> I am running JUNO version with qemu-kvm-ev-2.1.2-23.el7_1.9.1.x86_64
> on CentOS7.1
>
I am running JUNO version with qemu-kvm-ev-2.1.2-23.el7_1.9.1.x86_64
on CentOS7.1
I am trying to configure CPU pinning because my application is cpu
hungry. this is what i did.
in /etc/nova/nova.conf
vcpu_pin_set=2,3,6,7
I have created aggregated host with pinning=true and created flavor
with
13 matches
Mail list logo
