Is there a significant issue to allocating all available cores to one VM if that is the only major task...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a one-off task that requires me to use a VM to fix a build bug a software project using SCons (Python). The testing cycle is fairly short, resulting in frequent rebuilds. I'm using a 4-core laptop to host the VM and doing little else (a handful of tabs in Firefox, one terminal window for vim) aside from the work in the VM itself. I'm considering increasing the hardware allotment to the VM from 2 to 4 cores, but this would give all of my cores to the VM. Is this a terrible idea?
More info in case it matters:
VirtualBox on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
RAM: 2GB of 8GB used according to free, 4GB allocated to the VM.
Storage: 256GB SSD (M.2)
memory virtual-machine cpu multi-core core
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a one-off task that requires me to use a VM to fix a build bug a software project using SCons (Python). The testing cycle is fairly short, resulting in frequent rebuilds. I'm using a 4-core laptop to host the VM and doing little else (a handful of tabs in Firefox, one terminal window for vim) aside from the work in the VM itself. I'm considering increasing the hardware allotment to the VM from 2 to 4 cores, but this would give all of my cores to the VM. Is this a terrible idea?
More info in case it matters:
VirtualBox on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
RAM: 2GB of 8GB used according to free, 4GB allocated to the VM.
Storage: 256GB SSD (M.2)
memory virtual-machine cpu multi-core core
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a one-off task that requires me to use a VM to fix a build bug a software project using SCons (Python). The testing cycle is fairly short, resulting in frequent rebuilds. I'm using a 4-core laptop to host the VM and doing little else (a handful of tabs in Firefox, one terminal window for vim) aside from the work in the VM itself. I'm considering increasing the hardware allotment to the VM from 2 to 4 cores, but this would give all of my cores to the VM. Is this a terrible idea?
More info in case it matters:
VirtualBox on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
RAM: 2GB of 8GB used according to free, 4GB allocated to the VM.
Storage: 256GB SSD (M.2)
memory virtual-machine cpu multi-core core
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
I have a one-off task that requires me to use a VM to fix a build bug a software project using SCons (Python). The testing cycle is fairly short, resulting in frequent rebuilds. I'm using a 4-core laptop to host the VM and doing little else (a handful of tabs in Firefox, one terminal window for vim) aside from the work in the VM itself. I'm considering increasing the hardware allotment to the VM from 2 to 4 cores, but this would give all of my cores to the VM. Is this a terrible idea?
More info in case it matters:
VirtualBox on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
RAM: 2GB of 8GB used according to free, 4GB allocated to the VM.
Storage: 256GB SSD (M.2)
memory virtual-machine cpu multi-core core
memory virtual-machine cpu multi-core core
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
edited 2 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
asked 3 hours ago
user3.1415927
106113
106113
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This should not be a problem - worst case it will make your desktop sluggish. The biggest gotcha with resource allocation is oversubscribing RAM and causing the parent to swap, followed by disk IO bottlenecks in general (which can be somewhat mitigated by using an SSD)
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This should not be a problem - worst case it will make your desktop sluggish. The biggest gotcha with resource allocation is oversubscribing RAM and causing the parent to swap, followed by disk IO bottlenecks in general (which can be somewhat mitigated by using an SSD)
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This should not be a problem - worst case it will make your desktop sluggish. The biggest gotcha with resource allocation is oversubscribing RAM and causing the parent to swap, followed by disk IO bottlenecks in general (which can be somewhat mitigated by using an SSD)
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This should not be a problem - worst case it will make your desktop sluggish. The biggest gotcha with resource allocation is oversubscribing RAM and causing the parent to swap, followed by disk IO bottlenecks in general (which can be somewhat mitigated by using an SSD)
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
This should not be a problem - worst case it will make your desktop sluggish. The biggest gotcha with resource allocation is oversubscribing RAM and causing the parent to swap, followed by disk IO bottlenecks in general (which can be somewhat mitigated by using an SSD)
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
answered 2 hours ago
davidgo
41.4k74985
41.4k74985
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
I am using an SSD. Updated original question with that information. So if I keep memory allocation well within available RAM, processors are not as important? Would it be safer to allocate 3 instead of 4 processors?
– user3.1415927
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
Processors are important, but you are unlikely to lick you system up by over subscribing the CPU. All of this us quite safe, and yes, allocating 3 CPUs may allow more responsiveness on the host, but it's not a big deal.
– davidgo
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1378123%2fis-there-a-significant-issue-to-allocating-all-available-cores-to-one-vm-if-that%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
