From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3CE08746B for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:31:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B423024B2C for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:31:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 63A67244DA for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:31:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5BEEF46BCF; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:31:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:31:00 +0100 (CET) From: Dietmar Maurer To: Proxmox VE development discussion , "DERUMIER, Alexandre" Message-ID: <1568079353.1966.1640961060895@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev33 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.478 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] auto ballooning && ksm thresholds both at 80% X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 14:31:38 -0000 > Currently both are at 80%, > that mean that ballooning is vm reducing memory fast, and ksm don't > have time to run. > > as ballooning is a lot more intrusive than ksm, I wonder if it couldn't > be set to something like 90%. That sounds reasonable to me, but can you see that theoretical effect when you run your test?