KnownHost Server Configuration?

[SamL]

I'm sorry you find the concept confusing. The explanation may not be as clear as you'd like, but it's just an artifact of how the virtualization software that they use works. From a customer perspective, I'm very pleased with this arrangement over walling off a certain number of cores because it means that while my VM still has a dedicated amount of memory at all times, it can consume even *more* CPU power than just two cores during the times it's processing something and needs the power and there's no penalty for doing so.
I don't believe it would be any simpler to gauge 'load' based off of dedicated cores than it is off dedicated priority, but that's just my view. If a node gets CPU bound, they're going to address it pretty quickly anyway.
At any rate, I hope you find what you're looking for. I'm pretty pleased with KH though.

 

[craigiri]

So how do I know how my "priority" trumps others with the same promised priority? Do I actually know how many true clients are on a "X CPU" box?

I know they have a good rep.

Maybe I misunderstand. Are they saying that there are 8 CPU's on the machine and 1X priority means you have full use the one CPU? I thought it meant that you 'might' have full use of 1X when things are tough, but otherwise you are on a shared system. So they could have 20 clients on an 8-CPU machine, right?

As you can see, I don't understand virtualization too well. I assumed that if you can wall off RAM, that you could do the same with CPU cores. It appears some VPS software allows this and some does not. I'm more than willing to pay for 2 cores of a 16 core machine (for example) and not looking for a bargain.

I guess a simple way to answer my question is does the CPU usage reflected in top or other commands really mean much when the CPU is shared in such a manner? Or am I seeing the percentage of something which is fungible?

Reputation is very important. I may give KH a try...because of that.

 

[WSWD]

So how do I know how my "priority" trumps others with the same promised priority? Do I actually know how many true clients are on a "X CPU" box?

I know they have a good rep.

Maybe I misunderstand. Are they saying that there are 8 CPU's on the machine and 1X priority means you have full use the one CPU? I thought it meant that you 'might' have full use of 1X when things are tough, but otherwise you are on a shared system. So they could have 20 clients on an 8-CPU machine, right?

As you can see, I don't understand virtualization too well. I assumed that if you can wall off RAM, that you could do the same with CPU cores. It appears some VPS software allows this and some does not. I'm more than willing to pay for 2 cores of a 16 core machine (for example) and not looking for a bargain.

I guess a simple way to answer my question is does the CPU usage reflected in top or other commands really mean much when the CPU is shared in such a manner? Or am I seeing the percentage of something which is fungible?

Reputation is very important. I may give KH a try...because of that.

Here is the explanation directly from KH:

CPU Priority (In OVZ/VZ) ONLY matters IF the node's CPU is 100% utilized. At this point, the containers with a higher priority do indeed get more CPU time.

It's all based on a ratio system. If you have a total of 10x priority, one container with 5x, 2 with 2x, and 1 with 1x - they'll each get their share based on the ratio of the priorities. The 5x will get 5/10 or 1/2, the 2x will get 2/10 or 1/5, and the 1x will get 1/10 of the total CPU power.

Most VPS companies do not guarantee you a core, unless of course you are willing to pay for it. It's usually fairly costly.

 

[craigiri]

Well, I decided to give KH a shot - got a VPS 3 - 3GB RAM.
So far, so good. No worries at all about server load - I think the VPS sits on a 24 core machine (according to NodeQuery). Since CPU's are not walled off, I am seeing the report for the entire server load. I guess that's why it's at about 0% most of the time.


It did peak at 3% once in the two days I've been monitoring it.

I probably could have gotten by with a smaller VPS, but if this works out I can just put a couple of my other personal sites on it.