Different CPU types in XenServer pool
-
@flomer said:
Well, the one is at 1,9 GHz and the other is 3,1 GHz.
What I mean is, what happens when a VM is live migrated from the 1,9 to the 3,1 host -- what happens to the virtual CPU speed? And what about the other direction? Will a reboot of the VM restore the vCPU speed to local host speed, or what...?
Will the faster of the two hosts in effect have its CPU speed lowered for all VMs in order to look like a heterogenous pool?
You are thinking about this very oddly. The VMs have zero say in the speed of the CPU. There is no connection. The VMs run at the speed of the CPU, period.
-
OK. I just started the VM on the host with 1,9 GHz CPUs. When I run 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' it tells me that the "cpu MHz : 1908.811". Then I migrate the VM to the other host (with physical CPU of 3,1 GHz). The two hosts are not now in the same pool. When I run the same command after the migration it tells me that the CPU is still 1,9 GHz. The VM now has a vCPU of speed 1,9 GHz but is really running on a server with CPUs at 3,1 GHz. Hence my question...
I try to reboot the VM and after the reboot the above command gives me the more expected result of "cpu MHz : 3100.172". This seems logical and I can live with this CPU "masking" when migrating a VM from one host to another on an irregular basis.
Now, I am wondering if this means that if the two hosts are put in a pool if the faster host never really will live up to its full potential, due to this "masking" of CPU speeds? Will the faster CPU always be masked as slower, in order to be more like the slower in features? If so, it seems I will lose a lot of computing power when I gain the benefits of a pool... Am I still unclear? -
The reason the servers have to mask the performance in different servers, is so that you can maintain your uptime of your VM's.
Think of it like any real computer, you can just expect it to jump with regards to its system resources without a system reboot. The OS has to investigate the hardware that it has to run with before those changes can be made.
If your pool was built of identical systems you'd never notice the difference. Is there a a major need to have the 3.1 GHz? If so tell management to buy a server that matches.
-
Well, I am just trying to make use of some old hardware here, and buying identical new(old) machines is out of the question.
But, if this means that the faster machine will have to be masked to a lower CPU speed in order to allow for VMs to be live migrated from one to the other in the pool, this means I will better utilize the machines if they are separate, and not pooled. Right?
I will instead have to use some other machines for the VMs that I would like to experiment with HA for. I have three other Intel-based older machines that have identical CPUs, so for this pool this will not be an issue.
-
For all intents & purposes, you can assume that the VM will run at the speed of whatever CPU it is currently on, rebooted or not. It's just like in Windows... Your hardware might support hotplug of extra RAM, but unless your software is configured to accept that, it's not going to see any new RAM until a reboot... Think of the CPU speed value as the same thing...
Essentially, you have hot-swapped a 1.9gHz CPU for a 3.1 gHz CPU... and when you migrate to that faster CPU, you should see a little bit of performance increase (or a lot, depending on what your VM is used for)... However, the OS above the Hypervisor doesn't see that it has changed CPUs because of the way XenServer handles that. If you have to reboot the VM for updates or whatever, it does a complete recheck of the hardware and goes, "Oh, new CPU!" and updates the OS stats.
-
@flomer said:
I will instead have to use some other machines for the VMs that I would like to experiment with HA for. I have three other Intel-based older machines that have identical CPUs, so for this pool this will not be an issue.
I would suggest keeping them in the same pool unless the VMs begin to act strangely after migrations, etc.
-
Hm. So you are saying that a VM that is mirgated form the 1,9 GHz host to the 3,1 GHz host will actually run faster, even though it will not report the correct speed until a reboot? In that case it will be perfectly fine to pool the hosts together, for added flexibility and possible HA-fun
-
@flomer I'm not 100% certain that is the case in XenServer, but I know that was the case when I used coughvmwarecough.
-
OK, I guess I could try and test it if I have the time soon
-
@flomer I would recommend against testing anything in production, unless you want to have a fun day, lol.
/ -
Well, it's on our lab network, and I am playing with and learning XenServer at the moment. I might move some of our production servers from vSphere to XenServer if things work out nicely.
-
Depending on your VMswear licensing, you might make out nicely and save a bit of money and not have to give it to VMware.
-
Yes. At the moment we are having two different Essentials Plus environments, and I must say I am at times very frustrated about the limitations. I mean, why not 5 hosts instead of just three (6 CPUs)?? We are a rather small SMB-type department in a large organization, and I see that XenServer will give us things like live storage vmotion for free, whereas for vSphere I have to shut down the VMs... I am also playing with View, and thinking about virtualizing a few workstations that have powerful GPUs -- for that to work we need full licenses in order for vGPU to work, and this will be prohibitively expensive when we are just talking about 5 users... I feel sometimes that we are cought in the middle. We are a business, but have a small budget. Sigh...
-
@flomer said:
We are a business, but have a small budget. Sigh...
I feel your pain there!
@flomer said:
I am also playing with View, and thinking about virtualizing a few workstations that have powerful GPUs -- for that to work we need full licenses in order for vGPU to work, and this will be prohibitively expensive when we are just talking about 5 users...
Yeah, that's what a lot of organizations run into... It usually doesn't make sense to virtualize entire workstations unless you're talking about a couple hundred users to start. It is fine if you are testing for viability though.. . However, if you are a WIndows shop, I can recommend using Hyper-V for VDI (or just letting them run the applications inside of a regular remote desktop session!)... There's pros and cons to doing it both ways.
-
@flomer said:
OK. I just started the VM on the host with 1,9 GHz CPUs. When I run 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' it tells me that the "cpu MHz : 1908.811". Then I migrate the VM to the other host (with physical CPU of 3,1 GHz). The two hosts are not now in the same pool. When I run the same command after the migration it tells me that the CPU is still 1,9 GHz. The VM now has a vCPU of speed 1,9 GHz but is really running on a server with CPUs at 3,1 GHz.
You can't ask the VM about the hardware it is on! You have to ask the hypervisor. The VM is virtualized, it doesn't know anything.
-
@flomer said:
Well, I am just trying to make use of some old hardware here, and buying identical new(old) machines is out of the question.
But, if this means that the faster machine will have to be masked to a lower CPU speed in order to allow for VMs to be live migrated from one to the other in the pool, this means I will better utilize the machines if they are separate, and not pooled. Right?
I will instead have to use some other machines for the VMs that I would like to experiment with HA for. I have three other Intel-based older machines that have identical CPUs, so for this pool this will not be an issue.
No, again, you are confused. The CPU speed cannot be determined by the VMs. You can't figure out what the speed is from them, nor can you set the speed. Using the VM to look at ANY hardware is nonsensical and will only lead you to weird conclusions. You should not be using VM tools like this as if this is hardware.
Don't even make yourself aware of this as it has you value to you.
-
@flomer said:
Yes. At the moment we are having two different Essentials Plus environments, and I must say I am at times very frustrated about the limitations. I mean, why not 5 hosts instead of just three (6 CPUs)??
If you are running VMware Essentials Plus you aren't a poor IT department with a tight budget. That licensing is very, very far into the "flaunting how much money we can throw away" category. That's huge money and the only reasons to have the Plus is because you make so much money that downtime of even a couple of minutes is worth a fortune AND you can flaunt that you aren't doing it cheaply and don't need more features.
Being tight on finances and having VMware don't go together.
-
@flomer said:
We are a business, but have a small budget. Sigh...
You are doing very expensive things or considering them for a business with a small budget. Most companies in the SMB category can run their entire IT infrastructure, hardware and all, for the cost of your VMware licenses alone! And VDI is extremely expensive as well, that's not for a tight budget shop. It has its place, but it is about saving labour at massive scale and has almost no applicability to the SMB market.
-
@dafyre said:
@flomer I'm not 100% certain that is the case in XenServer, but I know that was the case when I used coughvmwarecough.
It has to, it can't change the speed. It's not physically able to do that. Look at another VM running on the same proc and it will report the full speed. Obviously only one can be correct, and the one that is showing the actual processor speed that is possible will obviously be the correct one
-
@flomer said:
Well, it's on our lab network, and I am playing with and learning XenServer at the moment. I might move some of our production servers from vSphere to XenServer if things work out nicely.
That's the way to go. XenServer gives you so much more and does so for so much less money.
