WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Use saner dom0 memory and vcpu defaults, do

To: Jarod Wilson <jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Use saner dom0 memory and vcpu defaults, don't panic on over-allocation
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:39:34 -0600
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:37:28 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <46B8DB3C.2060607@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: HP OSLO R&D
References: <46AFF7F6.5090105@xxxxxxxxxx> <1185943424.6802.98.camel@bling> <20070801052434.GC14448%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46B08EE2.5020106@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B0ACEB.3080200@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B0C21C.9010605@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B0D5AF.1050309@xxxxxxxxxx> <20070802021200.GA6395%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46B1E766.7000003@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B1F9E6.9010404@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B2AFE1.6070803@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B3343A.9040106@xxxxxxxxxx> <46B34516.6030603@xxxxxxxxxx> <1186162709.6802.179.camel@bling> <46B5306F.8070504@xxxxxxxxxx> <1186407197.6802.207.camel@bling> <46B72C0B.8020002@xxxxxxxxxx> <1186458274.6802.217.camel@bling> <46B8DB3C.2060607@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:51 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:11 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> Alex Williamson wrote: 
> >>>    I think we're going to have to go with something like this, but why
> >>> would we reduce the cap to 64MB?  I usually think of ia64 systems as
> >>> having "bigger" I/O than x86, so it seems like maybe we want to stick
> >>> with at least 128MB(?)
> >> I think my original thought was that since your 96G box only needed
> >> really 17MB, 64MB was a ton to withhold. But after hitting send, I was
> >> thinking that no cap at all might make more sense -- you'd need 288GB of
> >> RAM to even get to 64MB here, and that's a tiny drop in the bucket when
> >> you have that much. Even with 1TB of RAM, we would still withhold less
> >> than 256MB. Until we have some 1TB+ systems to test on, we don't really
> >> know if reserving more than 128MB makes sense or not... I'd have to lean
> >> toward simply not capping this withholding at all, at least for right now.
> > 
> >    That sounds ok with me, we can continue to fine tune it via bug
> > reports if it's insufficient.
> 
> Okay, attaching one more rendition of the patch that goes this route.

   Applied.  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel