resource management on set of VMs / containers?

hkais

Active Member
Feb 3, 2020
23
1
43
45
Hi there,

I am pretty fresh with proxmox but using over +15y vmware already. So not fully fresh on virtual environments.

I was looking for an way to manage sets of VMs.
e.g. would like to define

realtime VMs:
- low disk IO requirements
- high net IO requirements
- very high CPU requirements (on bursts)

critical VMs:
- high disk IO
- medium net IO
- high CPU

also had, high, normal, low, best effort groups too

With this grouping my admins immediately could see, what VM is critical and has to be handled very carefully. (depending on the operation processed on the node)


with vmware I had an option to define resources, and to assign VMs to them. But on proxmox the only thing I have found is to define it VM vise and not group wise.
So I could pull the realtime VMs, which are mostly idle to a low prio group and on defined schedules I moved it to realtime. This was resource effective and from end user perspective also very successful

What I do not want to do, to mess around with VMs settings directly.

How to define such "resource groups" (afaik cgroups) and how to assign VMs and cotainers to it?
 
Hi,

this is currently not implemented. There's an open issue on the bugtracker [1], but I'm not sure if this is exactly what you need. Otherwise, feel free to open a feature request on the bugtracker for others to discuss :).

[1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lukas Wagner
hi there,

just a follow up after 2.5 years. Are there any progresses on making the vms more reliable in terms of priorizing them?
e.g. on CPU and IO?
This is one of the crucial features compared to vmware to kick finally vmware..

Any updates on this?
 
Hi fabian,

any plans to incorporate the patches? The feature is a must have in terms of having a reliable QOS on top of proxmox.
Anyway wondering why it is not a higher wish list on the community.

Is it too critical for proxmox to integrate? Afaik I would assume it is using the common known cgroups for such kernel level operation, or is it a different solution?
 
cgroups don't really work, because they are not cluster aware (although cgroups are used for containers to limit resource usage locally). like I said, I or somebody else needs to pick the series up, rebase, incorporate feedback and resubmit it. the feature is still on our todo list.