Open Stack

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 04:16:43PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 05/03/2016 03:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 
> >There are currently many options for live migration with QEMU that can
> >assist in completion
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >Given this I've spent the last week creating an automated test harness
> >for QEMU upstream which triggers migration with an extreme guest CPU
> >load and measures the performance impact of these features on the guest,
> >and whether the migration actually completes.
> >
> >I hope to be able to publish the results of this investigation this week
> >which should facilitate us in deciding which is best to use for OpenStack.
> >The spoiler though is that all the options are pretty terrible, except for
> >post-copy.
> 
> Just to be clear, it's not really CPU load that's the issue though, right?
> 
> Presumably it would be more accurate to say that the issue is the rate at
> which unique memory pages are being dirtied and the total number of dirty
> pages relative to your copy bandwidth.
> 
> This probably doesn't change the results though...at a high enough dirty
> rate you either pause the VM to keep it from dirtying more memory or you
> post-copy migrate and dirty the memory on the destination.

Yes that's correct - I should have been more explicit. A high rate of
dirtying memory implies high CPU load, but high CPU load does not imply
high rate of dirtying memory. My stress test used for benchmarking is
producing a high rate of dirtying memory.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|