Your case is valid and I use it also. Using 2 cores as 8 virtual cores
for _one_ machine is not the same thing.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> It depends on the use-case, there is a point when most of the time the VMs
> on the compute node are idle.
>
> A use-case yahoo!
that is virtualization for aggregation, or reverse virtualization. it's about
the hypervisor, not opnstk.
> 在 2013年12月24日，13:54，Vikas Parashar 写道：
>
> Thanks everyone for your valuable point.
>
> Kindly allow me to put my Question in different way.
>
> Shall any VM use distributed(for eg. RA
None of said features, cross host CPUs or cross host RAM (combining cross host
resources to form a larger virtual one?) afaik exist (maybe they exist in
prototypes since it is theoretically possible). Especially since this will
likely be really slow to perform. Afaik current virtualization isn't
Thanks everyone for your valuable point.
Kindly allow me to put my Question in different way.
Shall any VM use distributed(for eg. RAM from the different host) resources
at the same time?
or
Shall any VM use two cores(that lies on different hosts) at the same time?,
in the distributed fashion.
There are much bigger differences for why u should not over-provision
memory vs over-provision cpu.
But agreed in general you shouldn't use swap either.
There are many threads around how the OOM killer will get involved and why
you should avoid this...
- http://marc.info/?l=kvm&m=127375381631230
It depends on the use-case, there is a point when most of the time the VMs
on the compute node are idle.
A use-case yahoo! is doing is letting developers have many VMs, in this
case those VMs are mostly idle.
Given a hypervisor with 12 cores, we can place say 12x2 core VMs on there,
this is a tot
There is no point in using 8 virtual cores in compute node with 2
cores. The same is valid for using swap as memory to reach the desired
12gb.
Of course, if you don't plan on using that machine for any real work,
you can do it.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Nope, u ca
Nope, u can over provision on most all of the resources (CPU, ram, disk) u
described there. Ram is the tricky one as the Linux oom killer may start to get
involved when u push the ram limits to high. But there is nothing stopping u
from running 8 or more vms on a box, depending on the over provi
Thanks Cristian,
Will elasticity be limited to 4 Cores/4GB (The max capacity of a physical
host) ?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Cristian Falcas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From what I know you can resize a machine, but this involves
> rebuilding the instance: openstack will create a snapshot of the
Hi,
>From what I know you can resize a machine, but this involves
rebuilding the instance: openstack will create a snapshot of the
machine an recreate the instance with the new snapshot and a new
flavor. This is not very fast from my experience, so you will have a
considerable downtime doing this,
Yes, the instance when running can only use the available resources
from the compute host.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Vikas Parashar wrote:
> Thanks Cristian,
>
> Will elasticity be limited to 4 Cores/4GB (The max capacity of a physical
> host) ?
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Cri
Hi,
IaaS is all about elastic computing. I can stretch resources as per my need
- increasing/decreasing the number of cores, RAM allocated etc..
My question is - how does openStack achieve this elasticity for both
computation and RAM.
If I create an image with 2 cores and 4 GB RAM (and one day I
12 matches
Mail list logo
