I was wondering why our "small" images were ending up on "big" vms.
+1 for changing the order Yanik -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Peeler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: thoughts on reversing computer selection relative to RAM Also like to add that it should be more efficient use of the computers that have higher memory and cpu settings, in that they won't get assigned first light weight images. Aaron On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Josh Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dmitri, > > Actually, it will affect both. The VMs would still only be created > with the specs listed for the image. However, if you have some VMs > configured to be "beefier" than others, you end up with a similar > situation where you don't want lighter weight images to end up running > on those VMs. So, I think it would still be helpful for virtual-only > environments, and I don't think it would have a negative impact on them. > > Josh > > On Monday, February 18, 2013 9:16:47 PM Dmitri Chebotarov wrote: >> Hi >> >> Sounds like this change will affect environments which offer >> bare-metal reservations. >> >> For virtual-only environments it will be the same since reservation >> is created based on resources listed in the image properties. >> >> Does it sound right? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Josh Thompson <[email protected]> >> Date: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:31 am >> Subject: thoughts on reversing computer selection relative to RAM >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I'd like to get people's thoughts about reversing how computers are >> > assigned for reservations relative to the specified amount of RAM >> > for an image. >> > Currently, the scheduler builds a list of computers that can >> > fulfill a given reservation and orders them by specs of the machine >> > by this priority: >> > >> > first by procspeed * proc number >> > next by amount of RAM, >> > finally by network speed >> > >> > Each of those is ordered in a descending order (i.e. best specs at >> > the top). >> > Then, the highest rated machine is given to the user. >> > >> > That algorithm came from our initial design back in 2004 when our >> > nodes didn't have lots of RAM, didn't have a high variability of >> > contained RAM, didn't have more RAM that some of the OSes could >> > handle, and we weren't doing any virtualization. The idea was that >> > the user would get the best available machine for the reservation. >> > >> > Now, with nodes having very high amounts of RAM, a high variability >> > of contained RAM, and having WinXP images that can't even use more >> > than 4 GB of RAM, I'm wondering if ordering for RAM (and maybe all >> > specs) should be reversed. This would make it so that priority is >> > given to assign a node that just meets the specs for the image >> > rather than assigning the best one available. We're running in to >> > cases where we have some bare metal nodes with >> > 24 GB or more of RAM, but still have WinXP images available to >> > users. We have to map things so that the WinXP images cannot get >> > deployed to the higher RAM nodes to keep from wasting the RAM when >> > other users would like to have it. >> > Things would be simplified if we could just have a more general >> > pool and have the scheduler take care of keeping resources from >> > being wasted. >> > >> > What do others think? I could also make it an option in conf.php >> > as to which method is used. However, unless people feel it useful >> > to keep the current method, it would be simpler to just reverse the >> > ordering. Also, if you think it is a good idea to reverse it, >> > should all specs be reversed, or just RAM? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Josh >> > - -- >> > - ------------------------------- >> > Josh Thompson >> > VCL Developer >> > North Carolina State University >> > >> > my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu >> > >> > All electronic mail messages in connection with State business >> > which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC >> > Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) >> > >> > iEYEARECAAYFAlEiSTwACgkQV/LQcNdtPQN3qQCeLaxbUg9Rh6F4mpQrcn1mh5jz >> > VSEAn2C35CQCIqLnRUJFansQ5zKIhlNa >> > =KVAL >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > - -- > - ------------------------------- > Josh Thompson > VCL Developer > North Carolina State University > > my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu > > All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which > are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public > Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlEjiwwACgkQV/LQcNdtPQOfDQCfS4yLCYcwTrUAEL8whb0/fwJI > pq4An3gGoBH05e6v9kSy2gFnX9IBhv2A > =UAki > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Aaron Peeler Program Manager Virtual Computing Lab NC State University All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
