Re: PE2950 and Linux virtualization

["Kristian Erik Hermansen" <user=152@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Scott R. Ehrlich <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> What are people's experiences with CentOS 5.0 64-bit installed on dual 3 Ghz 
> quad-core PE2950 systems with 32 GB RAM each, high-performance computing 
> (applications that tax both the CPUs and RAM), not currently in a Beowolf 
> cluster but could adapt to that, and doing so with VMWare or other 
> vitualization software vs activity being done directly in the OS? 

I've done it.  The hardest past of clustering is properly 
communicating state.  Check out erlang and/or Google's map-reduce to 
understand how you can build a system which has very small tasks that 
may be completed separately and then rejoined later to solve the 
larger problem your aiming at... 

> How much of a performance hit, or gain (I'd presume hit), does 
> virtualization cause an application, resulting in what percentage poorer or 
> better (I'd presume poorer) performance vs dealing directly with the OS? 

About 6%, but even less with virtualization extensions... 

> It would be nice to have a VM perform some work, and if a person's code or 
> application breaks, have it take down a VM while keeping a machine up, and 
> not affecting other people's work. 

You want VMware's ESX platform (expensive) with VMotion... 
http://www.vmware.com/products/vi/vc/vmotion.html

> It may also depend on if an application or code is written directly with/for 
> the physical cpu/hardware vs more general use (VM). 

I don't know what you mean by this... 
-- 
Kristian Erik Hermansen 
-- 
"When you share your joys you double them; when you share your sorrows 
you halve them." 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss