On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've been thinking about using this for machines where people want to run > OSDS and VMs on the same nodes. Keep Ceph and the VMs in separate cgroups > to help keep them from interfering with each other. > > It won't help with memory or QPI/hypertransport throughput (unless you have > them segmented on different sockets), but it should help in some other > cases. > If we don`t speak on strict memory pinning and related performance boost, I have no idea how it can matters for cgroups by themselves. > Mark > > > On 02/08/2013 08:46 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Has anybody tried this yet? >> >> Running into the memory leaks during scrubbing[0] I started thinking >> about a way to limit OSDs to a specific amount of memory. >> >> A machine has 32GB of memory, 4 OSDs, so you might want to limit each >> OSD to 8GB so it can't take the whole machine down and would only kill >> itself. >> >> I think I'll give it a try on a couple of machines, but I just wanted to >> see if anybody has tried this already or sees any downsides to this? >> >> We use cgroups in the CloudStack project (through libvirt) to prevent >> that a memory leak in one KVM proces can take down a whole hypervisor, >> it works pretty well there. >> >> Suggestions or comments? >> >> Wido >> >> [0]: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/3883 >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
