<div dir="ltr">Ivan,<div><br></div><div>see if it provides an answer: <a href="https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/55307/overcommitting-value-in-novaconf/">https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/55307/overcommitting-value-in-novaconf/</a><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Eugene.</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:55 PM, James Downs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egon@egon.cc" target="_blank">egon@egon.cc</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:34:32PM +0000, Ivan Derbenev wrote:<br>
<br>
> if both vms start using all 64gb memory, both of them start using swap<br>
<br>
</span>Don't overcommit RAM.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> So, the question is - is it possible to prioritize 1st vm above 2nd? so the second one will fail before the 1st, to leave maximum possible perfomance to the most importan one?<br>
<br>
</span>Do you mean CPU prioritization? There are facilities to allow one VM or<br>
another to have CPU priority, but what, if a high priority VM wants RAM,<br>
you want to OOM the other? That doesn't exist, AFAIK.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
-j<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>openstack</a><br>
Post to     : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<wbr>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>openstack</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>