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:4.215 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site