the birdhouse in my soul

While reading an article about Hyper-V per-VM CPU settings , I saw this in the FAQ: [BEGIN QUOTE] Why do you use percentage for the limit and reserve – and not MHz / GHz? Many people find it easier to think in MHz / GHz rather than percentage of a physical computer. They also argue that using a percentage means that as you move a virtual machine from computer to computer you may get different amounts of resource depending on the underlying capability. This is something that has been discussed extensively on the Hyper-V team, and while I do believe there is some merit in this approach, there are a number of reasons why we chose to use a percentage instead. Two key ones are: Predictable mobility If all your virtual machines have a reserve of 10% – you know that you can run 10 of them on any of your servers. The same would not be true if they all had a reserve of 250Mhz. Given how important virtual machine mobility is to our users – we believe that this is something that needs to be ...

One of the first steps in a virtualization project is building a list of workloads that will get virtualized, with a measurement or estimate of the resources that they will need. X MHz and Y MB, sum everything up, and let's say you get 30 GHz of CPU power and 20 GB of RAM. The hardware you'd like to run all those virtual machines on can handle two CPUs (dual-socket), four cores each (quad-core). That means that every physical server will give you between 20 and 25 GHz of CPU power. For memory, you'll buy 12 GB of RAM in each server. So the plan is to buy two of those servers, right ? Well, as long as your infrastructure is 100% healthy and running OK, two servers will do the job just fine. You've got enough resources, with a bit of headroom for overhead and future growth. But what happens when one of the physical servers is down ? Think of hardware problems, think of virtualization software upgrades, think of patching the hypervisor. Then the available resources are dow...