On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:07:15PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:53:10 -0800 (PST) > > Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Here's a KSM series > > > > Sanity check: do you have a feeling for how useful KSM is? > > Performance/space improvements for typical (or atypical) workloads? > > Are people using it? Successfully? > > > > IOW, is it justifying itself? > > I have no idea! To me it's simply a technical challenge - and I agree > with your implication that that's not a good enough justification. > > I've added Marcelo and Gleb and the KVM list to the Cc: > my understanding is that it's the KVM guys who really appreciate KSM. > KSM is used on all RH kvm deployments for memory overcommit. I asked around for numbers and got the answer that it allows to squeeze anywhere between 10% and 100% more VMs on the same machine depends on a type of a guest OS and how similar workloads of VMs are. And management tries to keep VMs with similar OSes/workloads on the same host to gain more from KSM. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>