Is there a significant issue to allocating all available cores to one VM if that is the only major task...











up vote
2
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







share|improve this question




























    up vote
    2
    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







    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      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







      share|improve this question















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago

























      asked 6 hours ago









      user3.1415927

      111113




      111113






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          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)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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
            4 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
            4 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "3"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          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)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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
            4 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
            4 hours ago















          up vote
          3
          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)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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
            4 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
            4 hours ago













          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          3
          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)






          share|improve this answer












          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)







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 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
            4 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
            4 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
            4 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
            4 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
          4 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
          4 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
          4 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
          4 hours ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

          Image
          0 I have column SubToBind that shows current year ratio and column PY SubToBind which shows previous year ratio. How can I simply create a card that would be displaying them both in a nice way? Something like that: I cannot achieve that with regular card, I also tried Card with States by OKViz but also unable to see both values. In KPI visual - I dont like the word "Goal", it will confuse end users. Are there any cards or other visuals that would do the job? Thanks powerbi dax powerbi-embedded share | improve this question edited Jun 11 '18 at 20:11 Oleg
          Read more

          Alexandru Averescu

          Image
          Alexandre Averescu Alexandru Averescu Naissance 3 avril 1859 Babele, Ismail  (ro) près de Izmaïl (principauté de Moldavie) Décès 2 octobre 1938 (à 79 ans) [ 1 ] Bucarest Origine   Roumanie Arme cavalerie Grade Maréchal Années de service 1901-1917 Commandement chef d'état-major général 2 e  armée 3 e  armée Groupe d'armée sud armée du Danube Conflits Guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878 Deuxième guerre balkanique Première Guerre mondiale Faits d'armes Bataille de Turtucaia/Tutrakan Bataille de Mărăști Distinctions Autres fonctions 3 fois président du Conseil des ministres ministre des Affaires étrangères ministre sans portefeuille conseiller de la Couronne modifier   Alexandre Averescu (en roumain : Alexandru Averescu .mw-parser-output .prononciation>a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png")center
          Read more

          Trompette piccolo

          Image
          Ne doit pas être confondu avec trompette de poche. Trompette piccolo en si bémol, avec des branches d'embouchure différentes pour le si bémol (la plus courte) ou la (la plus longue) Trompette piccolo La trompette piccolo est la plus petite de la famille des trompettes. Elle joue une octave plus haut que la trompette standard en si bémol. La plupart des trompettes piccolo sont conçues pour jouer dans les deux tonalités de si bémol ou la, en utilisant une branche d'embouchure différente pour chaque tonalité. Le tube de la trompette piccolo en si bémol a une longueur moitié de celle de la trompette normale en si bémol. Des trompettes piccolo en sol, fa, ut sont également fabriquées, mais elles sont rares. La trompette soprano en ré, aussi connu comme la « trompette Bach », a été inventée vers 1890 par le facteur belge Victor-Charles Mahillon pour jouer les parties hautes de la trompette dans la musique de Bach et Haendel. La trompette piccolo moderne permet aux
          Read more