CPU Scheduler
-
I know this topic has been brought up and discussed a few times over the years, but I would like to get some insight into, in general, would be the best setting for performance and sclability for XCP in a "private cloud" hosted use case. In this use case, we have very little control over how our customers use XCP. There could be database servers, web servers, file servers, even Minecraft servers.
We are currently just using defaults (CPU) and was wondering if moving to CORE would be better over all. We want to make sure we address things such as NUMA boundaries and things like that.Any guidance would be appreciated or real world examples. Thank you as always.
-
Also, when looking at some settings on some of the VMs created, I see on the VM this:
Where would I find what "default behavior" is?
-
Hi,
Default settings are the most "secure" to give a fair use for all VMs, I would go the other way: if that works, don't try to change it.
-
It "works" but we have more than one person that complain of "its not as snappy" as something like VMware or Proxmox (I know Proxmox is KVM).
I also have an opportunity that I am trying to get to use XCP but this is the argument I am getting. They say it performs like a vm on VMware with out the VMware drivers.
So I wanted to just get an understanding of what other people have seen when changing this.
-
@hitechhillbilly The issue is "being snappy" can be related to so many different things and different usages, there's no universal answer. Depends on the OS, the tools, the hardware, some configuration and so on. In other words, it's impossible to answer a vague report like this, I'm afraid.
-
@olivierlambert I 100% agree its vague. I even told the person that. Like I was saying I was more looking for anyone who has ran a cluster in those other scheduler settings to get some feedback on it.
I guess being a little more specific, would socket or Core be better for VMs that are NUMA sensitive? Such as database servers or the like?
