On 10/31/2013 03:05 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 10/31/2013 03:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>>> (As for memory-critical cloud... I have no idea what that is to be >>>> honest. All I hear from the cloud people is "smaller is better". >>>> Mostly that's image size, not memory overhead but I can imagine they >>>> want that limited as well.) >>> >>> Admittedly, it's not the same as unswappable kernel memory, but I wonder if >>> for 2MB we can find that sort of working set size reductions in other places >>> on the cloud image. >> >> Quite possibly so. I just hate to be wasteful if none of the 3 >> products clearly has a need. If 1024 is sufficient, we'll likely go >> with that. >> > > The reason I'm pushing 1024 as a target is that we had a previous request from > users at SGI for a 1024. At least that is something we can point to instead of > picking a value that no one really wants. > > IMO of course ;) > Memory usage data difference between 1024 cpus and 128 cpus = 421k difference between 4096 cpus and 128 cpus = 1.9M P. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
