Re: [MirageOS-devel] Memory requirements for a typical Mirage OS VM

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxx>]

On 24/02/2014 10:48, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 02/23/2014 03:50 PM, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> > On 23 Feb 2014, at 12:57, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 22/02/2014 22:29, Richard Mortier wrote:
> > > > On 22 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Julian Chesterfield 
> > > > <julian.chesterfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > So hosting the website image will require more ram than a minimal 
> > > > > image.
> > > > yes; hence my question about what "typical" means :)
> > > The background for the question was whether the event channel 
> > > improvements in Xen 4.4 (and thus the capability to run a lot of 
> > > smaller VMs on one host) will benefit Mirage OS and others. That 
> > > argement hinges on Mirage OS (and similar) having significantly 
> > > smaller memory footprints that your traditional VM.
> > > I guess "typical" means "memory requirements for the type of 
> > > workloads Mirage OS is aiming to target
> > They definitely will have a big positive impact.  Our overall goal is 
> > to get an equivalent number of MirageOS VMs running as you can get 
> > distinct processes running on a single Unix host. If most are idle 
> > (e.g. just brief amount of traffic) and we are using modern 64-core 
> > machines, then we've estimated that we able to get to 10000 VMs 
> > without too many problems, with these problems rearing their head:
> Lars, I think you're missing part of the question: Matt Wilson's 
> question (re our press release) was whether event channel scalability 
> will have a benefit to MirageOS, OSV, and others *in public clouds*.  
> At least a few years ago, the assumption was that most public clouds 
> would be using massive amounts of rather inexpensive machines; maybe 8 
> cores at the most.
> So yes, for 64+core machines, event channels will obviously be a 
> scalability limit.  But is it really even useful to try to run >1000 
> actual servers on an 8-core box?  Even if you have enough memory for 
> them all, do yo have enough CPU?
I suppose I did miss this. Too much mult-tasking )-: And 
https://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/cloud-computing/751156-are-cloud-operating-systems-the-next-big-thing- 
under "Remaining challenges" actually look at issues.
> Of course the default size of physical servers in the cloud may have 
> changed; maybe public clouds now have 64-core boxes.  But given the 
> person who asked the question, I'm inclined to think it hasn't changed 
> much.
Maybe a the more correct thing would be to say that we are building the 
foundations that will enable Cloud OS use-cases in future incarnations 
of public clouds
Lars


_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel