Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 30.04.12 at 13:21, Per Jessen <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have two xen hosts - >> >> host1 is 32bit, 16Gb RAM, running 12.1+updates, kernel 3.1.9-1.4-xen. > > Hardly - there's no (supported) 32-bit Xen on 12.1.
I guess I must have built it from source. >> host2 is 64bit, 32Gb RAM, also 12.1+updates, kernel 3.3.0-2-xen. >> >> dom0 on host1 boots fine in 256Mb, but for host2 I need 512M. >> It's not a problem as such, but I'm curious as to why? > > How can we know or even guess, when you neither tell us anything > about the differences of the hosts beyond their bitness, nor describe > (or even better provide hard data) in what way it fails with less than > 512Mb. The hosts are virtually the same - both quad Intel Xeon, one is 4x2.8GHz, the newer one is 4x3.0GHz. When I started host2 with dom0_mem=256Mb, I saw lots of oom messages and it ended with a kernel panic. > That said, I don't really see the point in this small a host - how > would you expect any guests to run there (which after all is what > you'd want to use Xen for)? I must have misunderstood something - what is the typical or recommended size for dom0? >> I've also noticed that the virtual footprints of a few processes >> are significantly different from host1 to host2: [snip] >> For instance, xend on host2 appears to have a virtual footprint >> of more than 10 times that of xend on host1. Is this is really >> just due to 32 vs 64bit architecture? > > Presumably not directly, but given the list of processes above I don't > see the direct relation to Xen - apart from xend, all others aren't > Xen specific, yet show similar patterns. For xend, given that it's a > Python script, looking at Python's footprint in general would probably > get you much further. Thanks, I was thinking that too (after I'd hit send). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (21.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
