From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Lee Powell Subject: Re: Re: Questions about duplicate memory work Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:18:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20110926071803.GE18099@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> References: <20110925044511.GI30419@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Emmanuel Noobadmin Return-path: Received: from 173-13-139-236-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.236]:45339 "EHLO stodi.digitalkingdom.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751280Ab1IZHSF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:18:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:49:18PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > On 9/25/11, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > OK, so I've got a Linux host, and a bunch of Linux VMs. > > > > This means that the host *and* all tho VMs do their own disk > > caches/buffers and do their own swap as well. > > If I'm not wrong, that's why the recommended and current default > in libvirtd is to create storage devices with no caching to remove > one layer of duplication. How do you do that? I have my VMs using LVs created on the host as their disks, but I'm open to other methods if there are significant advantages. > > I've considered turning off swap on the VMs so all the swapping > > at least happens in *one place*; I dunno if that's best. > > Not sure it's a good idea. If the VM needs more working memory > than you allocated, I think it locks up dead if there is > insufficient swap space. At least that appears to be what happened > to one of mine. Good to know, thanks. -Robin