<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Dennis J. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennisml@conversis.de">dennisml@conversis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 11/10/2009 04:02 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:08AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:<br>
>> All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a<br>
>> disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and<br>
>> disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the<br>
>> speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by<br>
>> quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive<br>
>> VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu<br>
>> utilization of each etc..<br>
><br>
> What are the hardware specs you're running your 41 VM's off of just out<br>
> of curiosity?<br>
<br>
</div>I'd be interested in that info too especially the storage setup. I imagine<br>
local storage isn't suitable for this many VMs on a single host.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"> Dennis<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Eight core Xeon, 32 GB of ram and local storage for now. The storage is the main bottleneck but as soon as my PO goes through I'll have a second machine providing storage from the RAID via iSCSI. I have other ideas but I'll be putting them in a different post.<br>
</div></div><br>Students access their VM via NX. As you can imagine the requirements for this setup is not the same as for 40 web servers... I'm still in the process of finding ways of tweaking it to get whatever speed I can.<br>
<br>Grant McWilliams<br>