On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Marko Zec wrote: > >> Actually, we never seriously discussed or revisited the issue with >> separate >> UMA pools for each vnet instance. >> >> My original motivation when O introduced separate UMA pools was primarily >> in >> making it easier to spot resource leaks, and to prove the correctness of >> the >> whole VIMAGE / VNET thing. Having more or less achieved those goals, >> perhaps >> the time has come to move on. Having said that, and given that the >> current >> VIMAGE resource allocation model is far from being optimal (a lot of >> memory >> sits reserved but 99% unused, and cannot be reclaimed later on vnet >> teardown), perhaps it's time that we reconsider using unified UMA pools. > > I think there is a misunderstanding here; it can be reclaimed by the > time we have the teardown properly sorted out and it will immediately > help normal non-VIMAGE systems under memory pressure as well. > The problem is that, at least for TCP (and UDP in one special case as > I found after lots of testing), we are no there yet. > > After that, when it comes to resource usage, I am still wondering how > trasz' resource limits will plug into that. By the time we can see > those coming together we should be able to decide whether to go left > or right. >
I've been running into this memory exhaustion as well, having a need to stop and start my VIMAGE jails frequently. I'm confident that the proper solution will be worked out, but I wonder what sort of time-frame we may be looking at -- is VIMAGE expected to be production by 9.0-RELEASE? Also, does anyone know the current status of trasz's work (which I believe is to be completed December of this year)? I hope it's still on schedule :) -Brandon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
