Am 05.03.2014 17:45, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100
Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> Am 05.03.2014 17:28, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:16:21 -0500
>> Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start
>>> higher, say 150MB, then it doesn't matter to me. :-)
>>
>> This entire disk size optimization seems kind of weird to me.
>
> in case of kernel agreed
> in general you need to multiply the wasted space for each instance
At least for my uses, the amount of non persistent disk space isn't a
big deal. If I need disk space, I would attach a persistent volume...
in my use cases the SAN storage has already 12 SAS 15k disks
and the additional enclosure as well as the disks are expensive
well, i have rotating backups of the whole setups too and so
at least i have to multiply the storage by 3 or 4
I'd care much more about memory usage, boot time (you want to
spin
things up fast), and cpu usage (cpus are likely the most scarce
resource for me at least)
30 Fedora VM's on a single HP DL 380 average 5% CPU usage
that different the usecases are