Folks like Daniel in Hong Kong, Sajag in Thailand, and Ramandeep in US have noticed that I shifted my recommendation from CPU Contention to CPU Ready as Performance SLA. The reason is essentially Change Management. Moving from complaint-based operations to SLA-based is a transformation. It’s not something you do in a month. You need to enlighten your boss and your customers. It’s a paradigm shift that can take months.
As a result, CPU Ready is a better start than CPU Contention. Your IaaS business is not ready for Contention, pun intended.
CPU Ready is more stable than CPU Contention, as it’s not affected by Hyper Threading and Power Management.
- Running both HT on a core reduces the amount of CPU cycle by 50%. Since HT gives only 1.25x boost, each HT gets 62.5% when both are running. That reduction is accounted for in CPU Contention, which is why it can spike to >35% when Ready is not even 1%. Test this by running 2 large VMs in 1 ESXi. If the ESXi is 16 cores 32 treads, then you run 2x 16 vCPU VM. Run both at 100%. Set Power Management to Max so you eliminate frequency scaling from impacting CPU Contention. Both should experience minimal CPU Ready but high CPU Contention. My guess is CPU Ready will be <1%, while CPU Contention will be >35%.
- Power Management. As you can see here, in general you should take advantage of power savings. The performance degradation is minimal while the savings is substantial. CPU Contention accounts for this frequency drop. My guess is frequency drop of 25% will result in CPU Contention of 25%. I wrote guess as I have not seen a test.
Considering the above, Ready is a lot less volatile. This makes it more suitable as SLA. Operationally, it’s easier to implement. It’s easier to explain to folks less familiar with VMkernel CPU Scheduler.
If you use CPU Contention as formal SLA, you may be spending a lot of time troubleshooting when the business don’t even notice the performance degradation.
Where do you use CPU Contention then?
- If the value is low, then you don’t need to check CPU Ready, Co-Stop, Power Management and CPU overcommit. The reason is they are all accounted for in CPU Contention.
- If the value is high (my take is > 37.5%), then follow these steps:
- Check CPU Run Queue, CPU Context Switch, “Guest OS CPU Usage“, CPU Ready and CPU Co-Stop. Ensure all the CPU counters are good. If they are all low, then it’s Frequency Scaling and HT. If they are not low, check VM CPU Limit and CPU Share.
- Check ESXi power management. If they are set to Maximum correctly, then Frequency Scaling is out (you’re left with HT as the factor), else HT could be at play. A simple solution for apps who are sensitive to frequency scaling is to set power management to max.
- Check CPU Overcommit at the time of issue. If there is more vCPU than pCore on that ESXi, then HT could be impacting, else HT not impacting. IMHO, it’s rare that an application does not tolerate HT as it’s transparent to it. While HT reduces the CPU time by 37.5%, a CPU that is 37.5% faster will logically make up for it.
Unfortunately, there is no way to check directly the individual impact of HT and Frequency Scaling. There is no separate counter for each. You can see it indirectly by checking CPU Demand or CPU Usage. If there is a dip at the same CPU Contention went up, but CPU Run does not dip, then it’s HT or Frequency Scaling impacted the VM.
Hope that clarifies. If your observation in production differ to the above, do email me.