Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've managed to run around 5 VM's on my desktop at once before it froze and crashed. I'd like to be able to run 20 or more at once without having to use multiple computers.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I could accomplish this without breaking the bank too badly? Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Virtual machines are virtual, they are not magic. If you have 20 virtual machines running they still have to share the resources of your 1 actual desktop computer. So you could probably run more virtual machines by allocating less memory to each virtual machine, but the number of virtual machines you can operate is limited by the underlying memory/CPU resources of your computer.
First you have to find out where your bottleneck is. My best guess is memory. If your VM software supports it, try giving the virtual machines dynamic memory so that they don't allocate much that they aren't using.
As mentioned by the other answers, virtual machines do have to share the physical resources on your machine. Depending on how much money you are willing yo spend, you could upgrade your RAM or your CPU. Depending on exactly what you intend to do on these virtual machines, you might be able to get away with allocating less RAM to each one. If each of the virtual machines is running a 32 bit OS, you could probably give each one 1 GB of RAM, give or take. For 20 virtual machines running at the same time, I would recommend 32 GB of ram. If all of your VMs are 64 bit, you're going to need even more. A cheap CPU is definitely not going to do very well with that either. More cores will likely improve your performance significantly (but will be pretty hard on your wallet).
I know that this doesn't really sound like an "on a budget" solution, but aside from allocating a miniscule amount of RAM to each machine, there isn't really much else you can do. The issue here is that your hardware simply can't handle it, therefore, you need better hardware.
Related
Closed. This question is not about programming or software development. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 5 months ago.
Improve this question
Ok so, my monitor is going black on random occasions. Mostly it is when i watch a video. It doesn't matter if it is on youtube, facebook, udemy or whatever other site.
I checked my cables they are all good. I also turned off the screen saver.
Any ideas what it could be?
there could be many reasons for this - bad drivers, bad cables, bad screen, GPU overheating and melting solder connections (I've experienced this).
the easiest thing to check is to see if the issue is in the computer itself. to do that, connect to a different monitor (using a different cable).
to check if it's a software issue, you could try running a LiveCD of a different OS on your computer (for example, Fedora or Ubuntu).
if the issue still happens even with a different OS, then it's likely a GPU problem - you'll need to either get that replaced, replace the mainboard (if GPU is integrated), or replace the computer...
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to measure the effects of cpu overcommitting on a KVM setup (both host and guest). I can detect performance is degraded when the number of vCPUs is increased but ideally I want to look at some more objective metric (like CPU Ready in esxtop). Is there an equivalent to esxtop for KVM that provides a similar metric.
There is a fundamental difference between how you monitor VMs in KVM and how you monitor them with ESXi.
Since a lot of people run KVM in Linux, I'm going to assume your underlying OS is a Linux based one.
How to get CPU Ready like functionality with KVM?
With htop enable additional metrics and watch the gu section. This tells you how much CPU usage a guest is using.
Use virt-top which tells you overall CPU usage (among other things) of a guest.
The oversubscription principles that apply to ESXi also apply to KVM. Although KVM does not use CPU bonding (by default) like ESXi does, you still do not want to go more than 1:5 ratio pCPU to vCPU ratio in KVM. Of course, this depends on how much you're utilizing the CPUs. You also do not want to give more CPU cores than necessary either. Start with 1 core and move up.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I am anticipating multiple projects in Linux in the near future. I believe I am going buy a new, fast development laptop and was thinking about running Linux natively on the box for speed reasons (I usually run Linux in a VM on a Windows box).
However, I have been juggling with the idea of continuing to work with Linux in virtual environments, one VM per project. It seems to have the upside of environment isolation as well as strong portability. The downsides seem to be speed (since I am not running the OS natively) and isolation of some resources I would like to be common (let's say Pidgin, where I want to access common logs or something).
Are people doing this? What else is there to consider? Any insight would be great. Thanks.
Going with Preet's answer: As I always say..... unless you have a issue - don't optimise, and then first throw more hardware at it....In other words - why not try it. A linux host is likely to be very fast host for virtual machines. – Preet Sangha
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
has anyone having problem with latest release of arcgis 10?
my services running on ags 10 is very slower than 9.3.1.
And Arcgis Desktop is Really slow which cause me to downgrade back to 9.3.1.
Is it just me or anyone else having issues like this?
This "upgrade" from 9.3.1 to 10 is not worth it. I have a very new machine with fast processors and video cards and 10 runs much much slower. Just creating a simple buffer takes around 2 minutes where in 9.3.1 it would finish in about 10seconds. Unacceptable...
We just switched over to Arc 10 a couple of days before service pack 1 came out. We had some serious issues including speed problems with ArcGIS Server, Image Server and IMS. We applied the service pack and it took care of most of our issues on the servers.
We have not applied SP1 to the desktops or ArcSDE since we are limited by 3rd party tools that need to be tested first. But I am hoping that the problems we still see on the desktops hitting SDE will be resolved once we can apply SP1 there as well.
I have had arc 10 since September. Its been the worst experience of my professional career. Besides the crashes or lock ups 3 to 4 times per day, sometimes much more, it is the slowest program I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. I have a brand new machine with up to date video card and 16 GB of memory and it still takes longer to do the simplest tasks that I don't see how they can stay in business if this is the norm. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE Exp. I would not recommend this to anyone. If there is another option besides arc I would definitely go with that.
I haven't had any problems with Arcgis 10. However please note that the system requirements for ArcGIS 10 are much higher than ArcGIS 9.3.1
What are your hardware & software specifications? Do they meet the minimum requirements?
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 5 years ago.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Improve this question
I'm trying to figure out the best lower-budget home office development hardware setup. My laptop is aging.
My latest idea is that I would like a very powerful desktop paired with a less-powerful laptop. The idea being that the desktop would do the heavy lifting while the laptop would allow me to work untethered (but within range of the wireless network, of course.)
Is such a thing possible, or am I dreaming?
(I develop .Net applications - mostly Asp.Net)
Thanks for ideas!
You can do that with an RDP / Terminal Services client or VNC. You could also run multiple virtual machines on the beefy server (making it look like a poor man's datacentre / set of less powerful servers).
Another benefit is that you can do some testing with the laptop as the browser client and the desktop as server - this can sometimes show up issues that you won't see with testing on localhost (especially if your network goes down in the middle of it).
Yep, this makes sense and this will work. It's a similar model (but not the same) that's been used for unix workstations in the past (X window).
I would keep your aging laptop to use for testing thin client apps - who cares if it's aging how much power does it need to run Internet Explorer?
My dream development system at this moment in time would look something like this:
A couple of nice fast dual core processors
4 Gigs of memory
A couple of Intel X25-M 180Gb Solid State Hard Disks to run my apps off.
3 x 19+" high contrast ratio monitors, these 3 I have on my desk are wicked.
Ergonomic keyboard, I currently have the Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 which I quite like
Wireless Laser Mouse, I currently use the Logitech MX Revolution and I love it
A 2Tb SATA drive for extra storage space (just in case)
Of course, I don't have any of this at home, I have an aging laptop just like you. I have part of this setup on my desk at work and I keep drooling over the other bits and pieces.
You can use the desktop as some kind of a server and let both your desktop and your laptop compile.
It's like they render 3D CGI movies in studios, across a farm of computers.
This is exactly how my current setup is, and it works nicely. I'd still get a couple of 20"+ monitors, as the laptop can be a little restricting for long usage.