operationsIT
asked on
We have VMs with recommendation since using less than 20% CPU to lower CPU, is there risk?
Hello EE,
In my VM environment, we have a new storage system that tells us via reporting systems with less than 20% memory and CPU utilization. The reports recommends to regain resources to lower these. I understand the lowering memory, but for CPU, is there risk with lowering Cores per Sockets or Sockets (I'm not sure the difference) if I have 2 on both and they suggest going to 1
In my VM environment, we have a new storage system that tells us via reporting systems with less than 20% memory and CPU utilization. The reports recommends to regain resources to lower these. I understand the lowering memory, but for CPU, is there risk with lowering Cores per Sockets or Sockets (I'm not sure the difference) if I have 2 on both and they suggest going to 1
Lee W, MVP
Some people say start with 1. I say start with and stay at 2 cores. You're not assigning the resources exclusively, so it shouldn't cause a severe performance issue, especially if you have a lot of cores. Why 2? I've WAY too often seen operating systems that have a process that goes nuts and eats up CPU. When this happens, especially if there's only one core/cpu allocated to the system, it can make the system slow to unresponsive. By allocating 2 cores/cpus, the system continues to be responsive and (hopefully you have configured) alerts you to a problem where CPU usage is excessive and unusual.
I will add that more does not generally mean better - due to how the CPU time is allocated among VMs, it can actually cause performance issues with too many CPUs allocated to a VM - however, in general, *I* consider 2vCPU to be safe, especially on a system capable of 8 or more threads.
ASKER
Is there harm going from 8 to 2 if only 20% are in use? How about with Memory?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Great article!