On 10/31/2013 03:05 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
On 10/31/2013 03:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
>>> (As for memory-critical cloud... I have no idea what that is to be
>>> honest. All I hear from the cloud people is "smaller is better".
>>> Mostly that's image size, not memory overhead but I can imagine they
>>> want that limited as well.)
>> Admittedly, it's not the same as unswappable kernel memory, but I wonder if
>> for 2MB we can find that sort of working set size reductions in other places
>> on the cloud image.
> Quite possibly so. I just hate to be wasteful if none of the 3
> products clearly has a need. If 1024 is sufficient, we'll likely go
> with that.
The reason I'm pushing 1024 as a target is that we had a previous request from
users at SGI for a 1024. At least that is something we can point to instead of
picking a value that no one really wants.
IMO of course ;)
Memory usage data
difference between 1024 cpus and 128 cpus = 421k
difference between 4096 cpus and 128 cpus = 1.9M