On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 6/29/2011 4:04 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>>> On 6/30/11, Les Mikesell<lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> The seriously on-the-cheap approach is to run a few virtual servers on
>>>> hardware slightly better than one of the individual servers would need.
>>>
>>> Actually THAT is the fundamental problem ;)
>>> The physical server is frankly much more powerful than the two guest
>>> running on it. I have the same applications + public web/email running
>>> on old dual core machines with less memory than the guests.
> <snip>
>> OK, but without knowing the cause, you already know the cure. Make the
>> virtual servers not share physical disks - they will always want a
>> single head to be in different places at the same time. And there is
>> also probably some ugly stuff about how using files for virtual disk
>> images and perhaps LVM on both the real and virtual side makes your disk
>> blocks misaligned. Fixing that might help too.
>
> Here's another one, that I got from another admin talking to VMware: watch
> out just how many virtual CPUs you assign to each VM. If you've assigned
> 4, it is actually going to sit there waiting until it gets 4 virtual CPUs.
> As of '09, VMware was recommending assigning 2.
>
> mark
This is no longer true [1], but it's still a good idea to only assign
as many CPUs as you need.
[1] Source: VMware Engineer at VMware Forum 2011.
-☙ Brian Mathis ❧-
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
