Javier Guerra schrieb:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Still, if there is free memory on host, why not use it for cache?
because it's best used on the guest;
It is correct, but not realistic from the administrative point of view.
Let's say you have several KVM h
On Monday 30 March 2009 08:23:44 Alberto Treviño wrote:
> On Saturday 28 March 2009 11:17:42 am you wrote:
> > KVM devs have a patch called KSM (short for kernel shared memory I think)
> > that helps windows guests a good bit. See the original announcement [1]
> > for some numbers. I spoke to one o
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Still, if there is free memory on host, why not use it for cache?
because it's best used on the guest; which will do anyway. so, not
cacheing already-cached data, it's free to cache other more important
things, or to keep more of the
Avi Kivity schrieb:
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Double caching is indeed a bad idea. That's why you have cache=off
(though it isn't recommended with qcow2).
cache= option is about write cache, right?
Here, I'm talking about read cache.
Or, does "cache=none" disable read cache as well?
cac
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Double caching is indeed a bad idea. That's why you have cache=off
(though it isn't recommended with qcow2).
cache= option is about write cache, right?
Here, I'm talking about read cache.
Or, does "cache=none" disable read cache as well?
cache=writethrough disab
Avi Kivity schrieb:
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
What about cache/buffers sharing between the host kernel and running
processes?
If I'm not mistaken, right now, memory is "wasted" by caching the same
data by host and guest kernels.
For example, let's say we have a host with 2 GB RAM and it
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
What about cache/buffers sharing between the host kernel and running
processes?
If I'm not mistaken, right now, memory is "wasted" by caching the same
data by host and guest kernels.
For example, let's say we have a host with 2 GB RAM and it runs a 1 GB
guest.
Avi Kivity schrieb:
(...)
Perhaps KSM would help you? Alternately, a heuristic that scanned for
(and
collapsed) fully zeroed pages when a page is faulted in for the first
time could
catch these.
ksm will indeed collapse these pages. Lighter-weight alternatives exist
-- ballooning (nee
On Saturday 28 March 2009 11:17:42 am you wrote:
> KVM devs have a patch called KSM (short for kernel shared memory I think)
> that helps windows guests a good bit. See the original announcement [1]
> for some numbers. I spoke to one of the devs recently and they said they
> are going to resubmit i
Nolan wrote:
Windows does zero all memory at boot, and also runs a idle-priority thread in
the background to zero memory as it is freed. This way it is far less likely to
need to zero a page to satisfy a memory allocation request. Whether or not this
is still a win now that people care about po
Alberto Treviño byu.edu> writes:
> The problem I've seen with this feature is that Windows guests end up taking
> all of their available memory once they are up and running. For example,
> booting Windows XP in KVM 82 show a steady increase in memory. Then about
> the time the login box is ab
On Saturday 28 March 2009 08:38:33 Alberto Treviño wrote:
> On Thursday 26 March 2009 08:11:02 am Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > Like, two guests, each with 2 GB memory allocated only use 1 GB of
> > host's memory (as long as they don't have many programs/buffers/cache)?
> >
> > So yes, it's also su
On Thursday 26 March 2009 08:11:02 am Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Like, two guests, each with 2 GB memory allocated only use 1 GB of
> host's memory (as long as they don't have many programs/buffers/cache)?
>
> So yes, it's also supported by KVM.
The problem I've seen with this feature is that Win
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Izik Eidus schrieb:
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Evert schrieb:
Hi all,
According to the Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines
) both VirtualBox & VMware server support something called 'Live
memory allocation'.
Does KVM su
Izik Eidus schrieb:
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Evert schrieb:
Hi all,
According to the Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines
) both VirtualBox & VMware server support something called 'Live
memory allocation'.
Does KVM support this as well?
What
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Evert schrieb:
Hi all,
According to the Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines
) both VirtualBox & VMware server support something called 'Live
memory allocation'.
Does KVM support this as well?
What does this term mean e
Evert schrieb:
Hi all,
According to the Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines )
both VirtualBox & VMware server support something called 'Live memory
allocation'.
Does KVM support this as well?
What does this term mean exactly? Is it the same as "
17 matches
Mail list logo
