You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> on 2013/10/23 07:32:13 UTC
[ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default offering in 4.2.1.
This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
-abhi
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
Looked at the scripts found minor differences have fixed those commit
499a8c0915dd25b3d9c813aa1b715ba9ba865ffb.
On 24/10/13 5:47 am, "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Slightly off topic but I've noticed that the scripts used to create the
>vm templates are slightly out of sync between 32bit and 64bit. I just
>assumed nobody used 64bit and that's why it got out of sync.
>
>Darren
>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Marty Sweet <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What would be the main reasoning behind this change? Surely the
>> minimalistic specifications that SystemVMs are assigned suit 32-bit
>>better
>> in terms of Memory?
>>
>> "The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that, relative to
>>32-bit
>> architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to
>>longer
>> pointers and possibly other types, and alignment padding). This
>>increases
>> the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for
>> efficient processor cache utilization."
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Abhinandan Prateek <
>> Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
>>>>> offering in 4.2.1.
>>>>> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> -abhi
>>>>
>>>> -1
>>>> Who is this we?
>>>> I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
>>>> a bugfix release.
>>>
>>> We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking
>>>but
>>> thought it will be good to have a general opinion.
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Darren Shepherd <da...@gmail.com>.
Slightly off topic but I've noticed that the scripts used to create the vm templates are slightly out of sync between 32bit and 64bit. I just assumed nobody used 64bit and that's why it got out of sync.
Darren
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Marty Sweet <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What would be the main reasoning behind this change? Surely the
> minimalistic specifications that SystemVMs are assigned suit 32-bit better
> in terms of Memory?
>
> "The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that, relative to 32-bit
> architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to longer
> pointers and possibly other types, and alignment padding). This increases
> the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for
> efficient processor cache utilization."
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Abhinandan Prateek <
> Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>> <Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
>>>> offering in 4.2.1.
>>>> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>>>>
>>>> -abhi
>>>
>>> -1
>>> Who is this we?
>>> I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
>>> a bugfix release.
>>
>> We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking but
>> thought it will be good to have a general opinion.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
32-bit vms also "generally" perform better on XenServer (depending on the
workload).
The issue with 32-bit Linux is that it has usually only has 800M for so
for available for the kernel [1].
This limits the number of connections that can be tracked by the conntrack
module to around
800/300 =~ 2.5 million. Of course this leave little space for other kernel
tasks.
If you've got a busy web site behind CloudStack's HAProxy then this may
not be enough.
[1]
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4929/what-are-high-memory-and-low-m
emory-on-linux
On 10/23/13 10:21 AM, "Marty Sweet" <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What would be the main reasoning behind this change? Surely the
>minimalistic specifications that SystemVMs are assigned suit 32-bit better
>in terms of Memory?
>
>"The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that, relative to 32-bit
>architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to longer
>pointers and possibly other types, and alignment padding). This increases
>the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for
>efficient processor cache utilization."
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Abhinandan Prateek <
>Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>> ><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
>> >>offering in 4.2.1.
>> >> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>> >>
>> >> -abhi
>> >
>> >-1
>> >Who is this we?
>> >I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
>> >a bugfix release.
>>
>> We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking
>>but
>> thought it will be good to have a general opinion.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Marty Sweet <ms...@gmail.com>.
What would be the main reasoning behind this change? Surely the
minimalistic specifications that SystemVMs are assigned suit 32-bit better
in terms of Memory?
"The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that, relative to 32-bit
architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to longer
pointers and possibly other types, and alignment padding). This increases
the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for
efficient processor cache utilization."
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Abhinandan Prateek <
Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> ><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
> >>offering in 4.2.1.
> >> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
> >>
> >> -abhi
> >
> >-1
> >Who is this we?
> >I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
> >a bugfix release.
>
> We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking but
> thought it will be good to have a general opinion.
>
> -abhi
>
>
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
><Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
>>offering in 4.2.1.
>> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>>
>> -abhi
>
>-1
>Who is this we?
>I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
>a bugfix release.
We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking but
thought it will be good to have a general opinion.
-abhi
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
<Ab...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default offering in 4.2.1.
> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>
> -abhi
-1
Who is this we?
I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be
a bugfix release.
--David
RE: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:24 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
>
> On 10/23/2013 07:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> >
> > We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default
> offering in 4.2.1.
> > This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
> >
>
> I'd say -1.
>
> Since it is going to be a minor upgrade and although this seems like a
> harmless thing, it would postpone it to 4.3
[Animesh>] Given that we are now 2 weeks from feature freeze we should lock down on system templates for 4.3 soon, I will track the 64bit template for 4.3
>
> A minor release should be bugfixes only imho and changing the
> architecture of a System VM isn't a bugfix.
>
> Wido
>
> > -abhi
> >
Re: [ASF4.2.1] default to 64-bit system VM template
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 10/23/2013 07:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>
> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default offering in 4.2.1.
> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this.
>
I'd say -1.
Since it is going to be a minor upgrade and although this seems like a
harmless thing, it would postpone it to 4.3
A minor release should be bugfixes only imho and changing the
architecture of a System VM isn't a bugfix.
Wido
> -abhi
>