Re: [PATCH 0/11] ksm: NUMA trees and page migration

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

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@google.com> 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@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>