xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion
To: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion |
From: |
Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:47:46 +0200 |
Cc: |
George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, zhigang.x.wang@xxxxxxxxxx, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:48:14 -0700 |
Dkim-signature: |
v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ts.fujitsu.com; i=juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; q=dns/txt; s=s1536b; t=1248846549; x=1280382549; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Juergen=20Gross=20<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |Subject:=20Re:=20[Xen-devel]=20Cpu=20pools=20discussion |Date:=20Wed,=2029=20Jul=202009=2007:47:46=20+0200 |Message-ID:=20<4A6FE282.60403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|To:=20Dan =20Magenheimer=20<dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>|CC:=20Georg e=20Dunlap=20<dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>,=20xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx urce.com,=20=0D=0A=20zhigang.x.wang@xxxxxxxxxx,=20Tim=20D eegan=20<Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>,=20=0D=0A=20Keir=20Fraser =20<Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|In-Reply-To:=20<4c912c e4-270a-49c5-80a2-dc975949c3bb@default>|References:=20<4c 912ce4-270a-49c5-80a2-dc975949c3bb@default>; bh=7w0sErYT8F/I08yRf3/e58hyp/mYuzzOA77UvfP9SWE=; b=GbP1EdW/kgUvYlXtCxdew+BReq0EE3zJuLqCfhawOP64sLZXyM4BxRcu TJQERzdrwFRH/K/BQTop6uUrvEtsWW3Kqi+MKXC6MTM1+grBUqCwAlKsc m+HWvL8ZbmMgX/QvzkR+krgfCWhYZtFRtSAc9heXbNmYTe3cFpKZTbgLE e967Us+a6utE1C5EJvEq3kiHe56odfPg964qjxYuK5o5Vjb3pd+cMN3NF jg2FUpI0YXiyqxYkw4MpIBK50YX8L; |
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=KgB0jRti5Q4RcZCDxdBywEgs6ACVej7lmmEbRS8MCedsEiEvaylp9LvE /uoq9CN04I/qMgjLVvCsMj/L2rM4h99RbZYfHs3ldxl22m3f99Alsp5Vj GPfXzdHaIOfss1Gg3WCdqVfdbM62kyk7oeC8DlhigM7T7lNxLH7oojLAN KhAkmOYZRPYT1RgBOOjlfYKeWELPwd4MlVVkUxjDzButcohwOEuq5Mt06 Jv3T5RLuICioV/K9PzCpKyNShCqZt; |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<4c912ce4-270a-49c5-80a2-dc975949c3bb@default> |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
Organization: |
Fujitsu Technology Solutions |
References: |
<4c912ce4-270a-49c5-80a2-dc975949c3bb@default> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) |
Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> Sorry for the late join...
>
> I wonder if cpu pools helps with the following problem:
>
> Some large software company that shall remain nameless
> continues to license their high value applications
> on a per-pcpu basis rather than on a per-vcpu basis.
> As a result, VMs running these applications must be
> restricted to specific pcpu's which are "licensed" to
> run the software.
>
> Currently this is done with pinning, but pinning
> does restrict the flexibility of a multi-vcpu VM.
> Affinity seems like it should help, but affinity
> doesn't restrict the VM from running on a non-affinitive
> pcpu (does it?)
>
> For example, assume you have an 8 vcpu VM and it
> must be restricted to a 2 pcpu license on a
> 4 pcpu server. Ideally, you'd like any of the 8
> vcpus to be assigned to either pcpu at any time
> so you don't want to pin, for example, even
> vcpu's to pcpu#0 and odd vcpu's to pcpu#1.
> And, if all vcpus are idle, you'd like pcpu#0
> and pcpu#1 to be free to run other VMs.
>
> Can this be done with cpu pools (easier than / more
> flexibly than / and not at all ) with current pinning
> and affinity?
Pools will restrict the assigned domains to the assigned pcpus.
This can be done by affinity masks as well.
But pools won't allow domains of pool B to run on idle pcpus of pool A.
>
> Also in a data center, does cpu pools make it possible/
> easier for tools to pre-assign a subset of processors
> on ALL servers in the data center to serve a certain
> licensed class of VMs? For example, perhaps one
> would like to upgrade some of the machines in one's
> virtual data center from dual-core to quad-core but
> not pay for additional per-pcpu app licenses (i.e.
> the additional pcpus will be used for other non-licensed
> VMs). Tools could assign two pcpus on each server
> to be part of the "DB pool" thus restricting execution
> (and license fees) but still allowing easy migration.
>
> Can this be done with cpu pools (easier than / more
> flexibly than / and not at all ) with current pinning
> and affinity?
This is easy doable with pools.
We are doing this for our BS2000 system.
>
> If the answer to these questions is yes, than I
> suspect one large software company might be very
> interested in cpu pools.
Is one "yes" enough? :-)
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
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, (continued)
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Tim Deegan
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Tim Deegan
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, George Dunlap
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- RE: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Dan Magenheimer
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, George Dunlap
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Zhigang Wang
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion,
Juergen Gross <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, George Dunlap
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Juergen Gross
- Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion, Keir Fraser
|
|
|