VM performance numbers should be relative to the guest, not the host

Bug #251065 reported by Richard Laager
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
virt-manager
Invalid
Medium
virt-manager (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Imagine a host with 4 CPUs and 4 GB of RAM. Imagine a guest with one CPU and 512 MB of RAM. If it maxes out its resources, it'll show as using 25% CPU and 12.5% of RAM. This is relative to the host, but that's not really meaningful when you're looking at the guest. Instead, those numbers should be relative to the guest, so it'd be 100% and 100%. As a special case, when the startup and maximum RAM are the same, it should just show the amount (512 MB) because a constant 100% isn't really useful.

The numbers on the main virt-manager screen (as opposed to on the detail of a specific host) are harder to define. I can make a case for both sets of numbers. I would argue that both should be available (in separate columns), but the relative-to-guest columns should be hidden by default.

Richard Laager (rlaager)
description: updated
Changed in virt-manager:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
In , Daniel (daniel-redhat-bugs) wrote :

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.4) Gecko/2008111318 Ubuntu/8.10 (intrepid) Firefox/3.0.4

Imagine a host with 4 CPUs and 4 GB of RAM. Imagine a guest with one CPU and 512 MB of RAM. If it maxes out its resources, it'll show as using 25% CPU and 12.5% of RAM. This is relative to the host, but that's not really meaningful when you're looking at the guest. Instead, those numbers should be relative to the guest, so it'd be 100% and 100%. As a special case, when the startup and maximum RAM are the same, it should just show the amount (512 MB) because a constant 100% isn't really useful.

The numbers on the main virt-manager screen (as opposed to on the detail of a specific host) are harder to define. I can make a case for both sets of numbers. I would argue that both should be available (in separate columns), but the relative-to-guest columns should be hidden by default.

Reproducible: Always

Dan Bass (dbass)
Changed in virt-manager:
importance: Undecided → Unknown
status: New → Unknown
Changed in virt-manager:
status: Unknown → Confirmed
Changed in virt-manager (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
In , Cole (cole-redhat-bugs) wrote :

The memory issues are gone in recent virt-manager, since we don't really show a graph for it anymore (since historically we haven't had _actual_ memory usage statistics from inside the guest, so it wasn't all that useful to show a graph here).

The CPU issue is tracked in other bugs, so closing as a dup

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 629754 ***

Changed in virt-manager:
importance: Unknown → Medium
status: Confirmed → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.