Hi,
Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:
>
> - sar doesn't know a bit about virtualization, therefore all its
> measures are relative to the resources available to that VM
>
A question concerning this point :
If all the measures are relative to the resources available, how can we
explain that :
On the non virtualized platform, the consumption with a process is :
user nice system iowait idle
43,54 0 8,56 6,7 41,12
On the virtualized platform without CPU cap by xen (physical CPU accessible
for every domain), the consumption with the same process is :
user nice system iowait steal idle
Dom0 0,01 0 0,97 26,44 1,97 70,61
vm1 21,28 0 8,91 23,48 0,5 45,83 (activity
only on vm1)
vm2 0,01 0 0,1 8,33 0,84 90,81
vm3 0 0 0,01 4,82 0,74 94,34
vm4 0 0 0,01 3,75 0,31 95,92
On the virtualized platform with CPU caped by xen (25% physical CPU
accessible for each domain, except Dom0 which has full access), the
consumption with the same process is :
user nice system iowait steal idle
Dom0 0,02 0 0,58 18,82 1,57 79,01
vm1 14,93 0 2,18 13,43 33,38 36,08
(activity only on vm1)
vm2 0,01 0 0,02 5,43 0,63 93,9
vm3 0,01 0 0,02 2,64 0,64 96,7
vm4 0,01 0 0,01 4,22 0,14 95,63
So, given these results, caping the CPU for each domain at 25% of the
physical CPU has globaly :
- decrased the user, system and iowait consumptions
- incrased the steal consumption
- incrased a bit the user + system + iowait + steal sum
If all the measures are relative to the resources available, couldn't we
expect, as fewer CPU ressources are given to vm1, an increase of the CPU
activity measured on vm1 (at least user and system) ?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Need-for-precisions-on-SAR-measures-tp22315119p22334827.html
Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|