Hi, folks,
We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the COST
of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core
license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what
we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have
it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly)
other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have
disabled *all* the cores other than those four.
Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be
most appreciated.
mark
On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:51:57 -0400 m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the COST > of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core > license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what > we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have > it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) > other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have > disabled *all* the cores other than those four.You can do that with Virtual Box. I haven't tried it with anything else, but Virtual Box allows you to set (and change) the number of cores available to the session. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
https://agileek.github.io/docker/2014/08/06/docker-cpuset/ You could also try with docker. -----Wiadomo?? oryginalna----- Od: "Frank Cox" <theatre at melvilletheatre.com> Wys?ano: ?2016-?05-?23 17:31 Do: "centos at centos.org" <centos at centos.org> Temat: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7, container question On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:51:57 -0400 m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the COST > of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core > license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what > we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have > it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) > other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have > disabled *all* the cores other than those four.You can do that with Virtual Box. I haven't tried it with anything else, but Virtual Box allows you to set (and change) the number of cores available to the session. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I've been wracking my brain, but for the life of me can't recall the exact program name, but back when I managed a HPCC, there was a tool that would let you restrict a running process to X number of CPUs/Cores natively. I keep thinking it was MPC, but nothing googles on that. Regardless, that might be a better way of running Sybase, as a container may not be beefy enough to handle the load Sybase is likely to generate. On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:> Hi, folks, > > We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the COST > of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core > license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what > we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have > it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) > other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have > disabled *all* the cores other than those four. > > Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be > most appreciated. > > mark > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer *VIF* *International Education* P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA 919-265-5006 office Global learning for all. www.viflearn.com Find VIF on Facebook <http://facebook.com/VIFInternationalEducation> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/vifglobaled> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vif-international-education> Recognized as a ?Best for the World? <http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/> B Corp!
On 23 May 2016 at 17:51, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:> Hi, folks, > > We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the COST > of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core > license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what > we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have > it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) > other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have > disabled *all* the cores other than those four. > > Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be > most appreciated. >Docker has the --cpu option that might do what you need. You can also do this without a container: http://blog.scoutapp.com/articles/2014/11/04/restricting-process-cpu-usage-using-nice-cpulimit-and-cgroups Another option is to use KVM and Libvirt (and virt-manager if you need a GUI) -- Barak Korren bkorren at redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:16:01PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:> I've been wracking my brain, but for the life of me can't recall the exact > program name, but back when I managed a HPCC, there was a tool that would > let you restrict a running process to X number of CPUs/Cores natively. I > keep thinking it was MPC, but nothing googles on that. Regardless, that > might be a better way of running Sybase, as a container may not be beefy > enough to handle the load Sybase is likely to generate.'tasksel'? I believe it is just a wrapper for sched_setaffinity/sched_getaffinity, which you can also do with cgroups. -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
Frank Cox wrote:> On Mon, 23 May 2016 10:51:57 -0400 > m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > >> We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the >> COST of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a4-core>> license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what >> we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have >> it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) >> other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have >> disabled *all* the cores other than those four. > > You can do that with Virtual Box. I haven't tried it with anything else, > but Virtual Box allows you to set (and change) the number of cores > available to the session.My manager's been looking at containers - he doesn't want the overhead, both system usage and system maintenance, of a VM. Isn't VB a VM? mark
Mark Haney wrote:> I've been wracking my brain, but for the life of me can't recall the exact > program name, but back when I managed a HPCC, there was a tool that would > let you restrict a running process to X number of CPUs/Cores natively. I > keep thinking it was MPC, but nothing googles on that. Regardless, that > might be a better way of running Sybase, as a container may not be beefy > enough to handle the load Sybase is likely to generate. >Yeah, mpich, I think - one of my users uses that; on our other clusters, we've been using torque, though we're slowly moving to slurm. I agree with you though, I don't know that doing it that way will work - I think Sybase *looks* at the number of cores it can see, probably some of the license info it uses. mark> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > >> Hi, folks, >> >> We would like to run a container on a server, the reason being the >> COST >> of a Sybase license (it's by core), and what we can afford is a 4-core >> license. Now, the server's a nice Dell w/ 32 cores, so, ideally, what >> we want to do is set up containers, then, in one container, *only* have >> it see 4 cores, while the rest of the server, including (possibly) >> other containers, can see the other 28. The first try seems to have >> disabled *all* the cores other than those four. >> >> Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be >> most appreciated. >> >> mark >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > > > -- > > Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer > *VIF* *International Education* > P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA > 919-265-5006 office > > Global learning for all. > www.viflearn.com > Find VIF on Facebook <http://facebook.com/VIFInternationalEducation> | > Twitter <https://twitter.com/vifglobaled> | LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vif-international-education> > > Recognized as a ?Best for the World? > <http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/> B Corp! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
On 24/05/16 00:51, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be > most appreciated. > > markI believe *[0]* is what you are after. In summary: lxc-cgroups -n <container_name> cpuset.cpus 0-3 I've experimented with it - *[1]*: Regards, ak. *[0]* https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37670_01/E37355/html/ol_control_containers.html *[1]* https://imagebin.ca/v/2iMePQ4Sbf62
On 25/05/16 21:31, Anthony K wrote:> On 24/05/16 00:51, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Is it possible to do what we want, and if so, some pointers would be >> most appreciated. >> >> mark > I believe *[0]* is what you are after. In summary: > > lxc-cgroups -n <container_name> cpuset.cpus 0-3 > > I've experimented with it - *[1]*: > > > Regards, > ak. > > > *[0]* > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37670_01/E37355/html/ol_control_containers.html > *[1]* https://imagebin.ca/v/2iMePQ4Sbf62 >Also, I know you've stated you don't want the overhead of VM's. However, running a Linux VM on top of KVM on a Linux host doesn't tax the host system much at all. If you haven't tried KVM recently, then you owe it to yourself to do so and see for yourself - for Linux VM on Linux host, it outperforms VirtualBox. Regards, ak.