Hi, On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Christoph Pleger < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > > I'm not that much familiar with cgroups, but the way I understand it the > first VM does not get 100%, it will get 1024 shares out of 1536 (2/3 of > cpu > > time). > > Yes, that's how cgroup works, and I wonder why this is not a conflict with > what CPU= in VM Templates means > Could you please elaborate a bit more about this conflict? The only "problem" I can think of is that VMs will get more cpu time that requested if the Host isn't full; but we still ensure that the VM gets at least as much as requested. > and why the documentation even says that > the cgroup "feature can be used to enforce the amount of CPU assigned to a > VM, as defined in its template". What about enforcement without cgroup? > Isn't there any? > We have the "logical" OpenNebula level enforcement, and the hypervisor level. First one: the OpenNebula scheduler will not allocate more cpu/memory than the Host reports as available. Hypervisor level reservation: cgroups for kvm, credit scheduler for xen, and the esx cpu scheduler for vmware > I am also wondering why, in sunstone, one cloud node with one VM running > on it shows a CPU usage of 6400. I thought that this is because the user > set CPU=8, VCPU=8 and 8*8=64, but if CPU= is related to one physical CPU, > that cannot be true ... > Can you please paste the output of 'onehost show <id>' ? > > Regards > Christoph > > Regards -- Carlos Martín, MSc Project Engineer OpenNebula - The Open-source Solution for Data Center Virtualization www.OpenNebula.org <http://www.opennebula.org/> | [email protected] | @OpenNebula <http://twitter.com/opennebula> <[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
