Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Kir Kolyshkin <kir@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:24:09 +0400
Sam Vilain wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:45 +0400, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:We run different tests to measure OpenVZ/Virtuozzo overhead, as we do care much for that stuff. I do not remember all the gory details at the moment, but I gave the correct numbers: "1-2 per cent or so".
It is actually not a future goal, but rather a reality. Since os-level virtualization overhead is very low (1-2 per cent or so), one can run hundreds of VEs.
Huh? You managed to measure it!? Or do you just mean "negligible" by
"1-2 per cent" ? :-)
There are things such as networking (OpenVZ's venet device) overhead, a fair cpu scheduler overhead, something else.
Why do you think it can not be measured? It either can be, or it is too low to be measured reliably (a fraction of a per cent or so).
Regards,
Kir.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Kirill Korotaev
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Nick Piggin
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Dave Hansen
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Bill Davidsen
- Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Kir Kolyshkin
- Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Sam Vilain
- [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Prev by Date: Re: kernel BUG at fs/direct-io.c:916!
- Next by Date: Re: Good news --- jump from 2.6.13-rc3 to 2.6.16 (almost) ok (swsusp, input)
- Previous by thread: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Index(es):