[Lxc-users] memory limit
Papp Tamas
tompos at martos.bme.hu
Tue Aug 16 07:36:08 UTC 2011
On 2011-08-16 00:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 11:51 PM, Papp Tamas wrote:
>> hi!
>>
>> I'm asking you about limiting memory.
>>
>> This is the test config:
>> lxc.cgroup.memory.limit_in_bytes = 16M
>> lxc.cgroup.memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 1G
>> lxc.cgroup.cpuset.cpus = 0-1
>> lxc.cgroup.cpu.shares = 1024
>>
>> I run apt-get upgrade and an openfire server (java) as memory harvester
>> jobs.
>>
>> 23:42:37 up 1:54, 3 users, load average: 3.08, 2.47, 1.42
>>
>> $ vmstat 5
>> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
>> ----cpu----
>> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy
>> id wa
>> 5 3 94952 2356752 79004 1051784 52 60 132 110 104 170 2
>> 1 94 4
>> 0 4 97280 2358896 79012 1051772 2105 2254 2105 2396 940 1163 2
>> 3 40 56
>> 0 1 98544 2358276 79036 1051764 1374 1060 1374 1177 493 963 1
>> 2 48 50
>> 0 4 99384 2358880 79056 1052460 1538 1432 4286 1526 727 1207 0
>> 2 38 59
>> 0 3 100596 2355212 79064 1052476 666 645 3718 718 483 1067 1
>> 3 37 59
>> 0 3 104132 2350996 79064 1052588 1039 1106 4606 1224 540 961 1
>> 2 41 56
>> 0 3 104488 2350376 79088 1052172 938 641 3624 756 505 865 0
>> 1 42 57
>> 1 3 103964 2349552 79096 1052568 642 426 3598 477 591 886 16
>> 1 26 56
>> 0 3 103860 2350008 79112 1052360 491 357 4277 434 850 957 39
>> 1 10 50
>> 0 4 104652 2350908 79112 1052056 738 746 5207 813 804 1049 23
>> 2 18 57
>> 0 2 106320 2350016 79120 1052464 825 706 5439 789 941 983 33
>> 1 13 53
>> 0 8 105540 2347444 79136 1052264 1185 290 4692 379 484 890 1
>> 1 34 64
>> 0 7 107756 2347000 79144 1052448 948 950 2970 1002 555 900 1
>> 2 36 62
>> 0 2 106868 2346528 79152 1052428 674 316 4130 402 446 825 1
>> 2 43 55
>> 0 2 104556 2346372 79160 1052160 570 261 3872 343 492 865 1
>> 3 40 55
>> 0 2 104976 2345504 79176 1052560 606 506 4298 612 444 839 1
>> 2 43 54
>> 0 2 104004 2345256 79184 1052476 442 277 3633 362 401 765 2
>> 2 40 55
>> 0 3 104000 2345248 79192 1052156 555 406 3237 493 475 792 2
>> 3 37 58
>> 0 7 105044 2344728 79200 1052156 854 775 3691 867 498 902 0
>> 2 40 58
>> 0 4 105036 2344472 79208 1052396 790 586 3428 668 477 865 1
>> 2 33 65
>> 0 4 105956 2344248 79216 1052372 590 487 4104 578 562 833 1
>> 2 35 62
>> 0 4 105268 2343496 79224 1052296 681 317 3506 399 425 793 1
>> 0 41 58
>> 0 2 105736 2343216 79232 1052284 394 284 3578 373 441 773 0
>> 1 45 54
>> 0 2 105072 2343464 79248 1052252 773 538 5720 632 534 908 0
>> 1 44 55
>> 0 2 105572 2342968 79256 1052560 436 342 4547 428 419 806 0
>> 1 46 52
>> 0 2 106000 2345108 79264 1052444 591 867 4534 946 525 862 1
>> 1 44 54
>> 1 3 103092 2345076 79280 1052220 906 234 4302 329 470 885 0
>> 1 42 57
>> 0 2 104636 2345200 79288 1052448 747 870 3556 942 548 886 0
>> 1 37 61
>> 0 4 105296 2344992 79296 1052152 489 451 3738 550 439 780 0
>> 1 44 55
>> 0 2 103968 2346372 79304 1052268 858 674 4669 778 578 913 1
>> 1 37 61
>> 0 2 104052 2346612 79312 1052672 425 346 3766 444 424 786 0
>> 1 46 53
>> 0 2 104476 2347364 79320 1052164 310 224 3352 294 410 747 0
>> 1 42 56
>> 0 2 105428 2347356 79328 1052520 408 456 4321 547 471 918 1
>> 1 45 53
>> 1 4 104384 2349720 79336 1052164 586 320 4389 417 482 828 0
>> 1 44 55
>> 0 3 104672 2350200 79352 1052136 462 378 3098 502 508 898 0
>> 2 38 60
>> 0 2 105584 2349820 79368 1052168 544 490 4173 583 501 814 0
>> 2 45 54
>> 0 2 105344 2349572 79376 1052524 514 266 4138 366 481 822 0
>> 1 44 55
>> 0 2 105488 2348580 79384 1052424 727 410 4162 492 514 839 0
>> 2 41 57
>> 0 2 103904 2350068 79400 1052544 1058 781 5232 886 583 926 0
>> 2 42 56
>>
>>
>> Before starting the container the swap usage was zero.
>>
>> The problem is all of the container start working slower, for example
>> the lag of ssh sessions is increased.
>>
>>
>> Is this a normal behaviour? I think, this paging should not do this.
> If you reduce the memory for a container at a point where it swaps,
> automatically that will reduce the performances of the whole system by
> adding a lot of disk IO.
>
> Using the cgroup memory is like reducing the RAM. I am not sure 16M is
> sufficient to run an apt-upgrade command. What are you trying to achieve
> with 16M on your container ? What application today runs with 16MB of RAM ?
I set up 16M RAM only for testing purposes.
Check si/so columns, doyou think it's swapping so much that explains it?
I'm not sure, but I'm not an expert on this subject, that's why I'm
asking you:)
Thanks,
tamas
More information about the lxc-users
mailing list