incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Xu <Xuefei...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: CPU CAP XenServer
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:31:14 GMT
Hi Matthew,

That's a very good question, thanks for bringing this up.
When we implemented cap/weight for XenServer, we thought cap/weight is per VCPU not per VM.
If cap is wrong, then weight is also wrong.

In all articles you referred to , they don't explicitly say if the domain is a single VCPU
domain or a SMP domain.

By default, the weight is 256.  If weight is per domain/VM,  4VCPU VM should get the same
CPU cycle as 1VCPU VM, because they have same weight 256.
It doesn't make any sense to me, so we thought cap/weight is per VCPU.

I'll get back to you soon with definite answer.

Anthony




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Hartmann [mailto:mhartmann@tls.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CPU CAP XenServer
> 
> Hello:
> 
> I reported this issue as a bug way back when 2.2.13 was released and it
> has yet to be resolved. It still exists as a bug even in 3.0.2.
> 
> http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-12972
> 
> Please feel free to submit your comments to the bug report.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> On 6/14/2012 10:26 AM, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
> > Hi, i found a issue and want know that it's a real issue.
> > I've  created a service offering with CPU CAP enabled and after
> deployment
> > i figured out that cap might be wrong.
> >
> >
> > Host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 0 @ 2.30GHz
> >
> >
> > Service Offering: 4 x 2.0 GHz
> >
> >
> > VM:        VCPUs-params (MRW): weight: 220; cap: 86
> >                VCPUs-max ( RW): 4
> >                VCPUs-at-startup ( RW): 4
> >
> >
> >
> > http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX117960
> > "The cap is expressed in percentage of one physical CPU: 100 is one
> > physical CPU, 50 is half a CPU, 400 is 4 CPUs, and so on. The default,
> 0
> > (zero), means there is no upper cap."
> >
> >
> > I believe that cpu cap should be 344 instead 86.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >


Mime
View raw message