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-users

RE: [Xen-users] SMP and Memory Limits

To: "Petersson, Mats" <mats.petersson@xxxxxxx>, "Gordan Bobic" <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] SMP and Memory Limits
From: "Kevin Babst" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:12:29 -0700
Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:10:13 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcW964icZh0U38WESve0phZiepss7QAAas8wABTsxvA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-users] SMP and Memory Limits
I have the current unstable tree running on HP DL585 (4-Socket 848) 32GB
of system memory. I have nine xen-U OS(s) running with a mix of memory
between 1GB and 10GB. I haven't stressed xen-U domains too much yet, but
the large memory seems to be working well.



-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Petersson,
Mats
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:05 AM
To: Gordan Bobic; xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] SMP and Memory Limits

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Gordan Bobic
> Sent: 20 September 2005 15:05
> To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] SMP and Memory Limits
> 
> Petersson, Mats wrote:
> >>>>>>What are the limits on how many CPUs and how much memory
> >>>>
> >>>>Xen supports? 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I am interested in this for both the host (0) kernel and
> >>
> >>the client
> >>
> >>>>>>(U) kernel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I am looking at getting some 16-way (8-way dual-core)
> >>>>
> >>>>Opteron systems
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>with about 64 GB of RAM for prototyping, so I would like to
> >>>>
> >>>>make sure
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>that Xen can use up all of the resources of such a machine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In Xen-unstable (to become 3.0) I believe there is no
> >>>>
> >>>>software limits
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>for CPU count or memory amount, only whatever limits the 
> hardware 
> >>>>>dictates (i.e. 40 bits of hardware address, 48 bits
> >>>>
> >>>>available in virtual
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>space). If there are any other limitations, it's 
> probably fair to 
> >>>>>consider it a bug, and report such failings on the
> >>
> >>Xen-Devel mailing
> >>
> >>>>>list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Obviously, 2.0.x, only supporting 32-bit in non-PAE mode
> >>>>
> >>>>would not be
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>able to use more than about 3.5GB of RAM.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is that 3.5 GB per dom-U/dom-0, or the total between 
> dom-0 and all 
> >>>>dom-Us put together?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That would be 3.5 GB in total, since the only way to access
> >>
> >>more than
> >>
> >>>this amount of memory would involve using address extended
> >>
> >>page table,
> >>
> >>>which isn't supported by Xen 2.0.x. 64-bit x86 actually uses the 
> >>>exisiting PAE, but with an added page-table level so that a bigger 
> >>>than 36-bit address can be supported.
> >>
> >>How stable is the "unstable/64-bit" version of Xen? Is it usable?
> > 
> > 
> > I should think that it's usable as long as you don't expect your 
> > system to be a "production system with 100% 24/7 availability" [or 
> > somewhere where you'd have 100 angry users to answer to if 
> the system 
> > goes down for more than half a minute]. Unstable should really be 
> > renamed into "testing" by now, as that's really what it is, but 
> > someone in XenSource decided that a rename of the directory was too 
> > much work... Or some such... The biggest problem would probably be 
> > obscure hardware or things that are rarely used in Xen, 
> which I'm sure 
> > that there are some outstanding bugs and new ones to crop 
> up in the near future.
> 
> So, you are reasonably confident that when applied to a 
> 64GB/16-way machine it isn't going to fall over flat on it's face? :-)

Reasonably so. But I wouldn't bet any more than the smaller
denominations of change that I've currently got in my pocket on it...
;-)

--
Mats
> 
> Gordan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 


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

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>