[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Scheduler follow-up: Design target (was [RFC] Scheduler work, part 1)


  • To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:11:32 +0200
  • Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:12:01 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: s=s1536a; d=ts.fujitsu.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-SBRSScore:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-IronPort-AV: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GMQPBqDZC/Nt/tEPHRaMOdN+cZrmotVn5VH50mxwhOaPYOxlOBLW1A4B jI2XRZ0/V1BykOm4DmB9+BTr3fNHTIB3s36Zs6TTfVh4nXlt8vEplJLYZ uNpVudEGHDjt7xAPIi/YLb2MFi4RKGMcE0UrvC1avxDOwkGGEcZwfVPya C7/ofjLzQ2NfPv/BL4HBPcTtAk9yEWcigqX0YEUev2ppMlKff8eFPhDvm o1H4jX6x4HCSjZXA9pG2byFhTGEWg;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

George Dunlap wrote:
> * [Jeremy] Is that forward-looking enough?  That hardware is currently
> available; what's going to be commonplace in 2-3 years?
> 
> I think we need to distinguish between "works optimally" and "works
> well".  Obviously we want the design to be scalable, and we don't want
> to have to do a major revision in a year because 16 logical cpus works
> well but 32 tanks.  And it may be a good idea to "lead" the target, so
> that when we actually ship something it will be right on, rather than
> 6 months behind.

This problem might be less critical if cpupools are supported. On really
large systems it would be possible to limit the number of logical cpus
for a scheduler.

> 
> Still, in 2-3 years, will the vast majority of servers have 32 logical
> cpus, or still only 16 or less?

I think Nehalem-EX will have 16 on one socket (8 cores with 2 HT each).
With 4 sockets this would sum up to 64.

> * [Kevin Tian] How about VM number in total you'd like to support?
> 
> Good question.  I'll do some research for how many VMs a virtual
> desktop system might want to support.
> 
> For servers, I think a reasonable design space would be between 1 VM
> every 3 cores (for a few extremely high-load servers) to 8 VMs every
> core (for highly aggregated servers).  I suppose server farms may want
> more.
> 
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on this subject -- either
> suggestions for different numbers, or other use cases they want
> considered?

For our BS2000 servers we would really appreciate support of cpupools :-)
Or as an alternative correct handling of weights with cpu-pinning.

Another question: do you plan to replace the current credit scheduler or will
the new scheduler be another alternative to credit and sedf?


Juergen

-- 
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950
Fujitsu Technolgy Solutions               e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6                        Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-81739 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.