嗨，MArtin，
我认为可以解除对同质（所有相同）vGPU类型的限制，但它有点像我头脑中的普通可编程阵列，固定大小意味着可以有效地完成许多事情。
我认为还需要避免记忆碎片，特别是当GPU被重新分配时（我想到vMotion和类似的可能的那一天）将是一个考虑因素。
确保进行常规和持续测试，质量保证和回归测试的需要会带来一些限制。
BAck移植总是需要投资额外的质量保证，不仅测试我们，还测试OEM测试实验室。
各种各样的事情是可能的，但我们必须保持质量和可靠性。
可以固定和封装CPU，但我自己的经验非常混杂，尤其是CAD / 3D应用程序 - 反向固定PTC Creo实际上提高了性能，直观的钉扎降低了它，因为一些非常严重的半光谱行为iirc。
太多配置选项通常意味着用户会陷入困境。
我不是这方面的专家 - 我希望有人会出现这种情况。
尽管我们需要知道用户故事/业务案例是什么，但我们需要了解每个功能请求....为什么你需要混合vGPU类型和证据，它值得在测试矩阵等方面进行大量扩展......
最好的祝愿，
雷切尔
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
Hi MArtin,
The restriction on homogenous (all the same) vGPU types could I guess be lifted however it's a bit like normal programmable arrays in my head, that a fixed size means many things can be done efficiently. I think also the need to avoid memmory fragmentation particularly as GPUs reassigned (I'm think of the day when vMotion and similar is possible) would be a consideration.
Some restrictions are imposed by the need to ensure cotinual and ongoing testing, QA and regression testing. BAck porting always requires investment in extra QA and test for not just us but also the OEMs test labs. All sorts of things are possible but we must maintain quality and reliability.
It is possible to pin and cap CPUs but my own experiences have been extremely mixed particularly with CAD/3D applications - reverse pinning PTC Creo actually improved performance and the intuitive pinning degraded it because of some very stragne semophore behaviour iirc. Too many configuration options can often mean users get themselves in a real muddle.
I'm not an expert in this area - I'm hoping someone who is will pop along. With every feature request though we need to know what the user story/business case is.... why you _need_ to mix vGPU types and evidence it's worth a substantial expansion in the test matrix etc...
Best wishes,
Rachel
嗨，MArtin，
我认为可以解除对同质（所有相同）vGPU类型的限制，但它有点像我头脑中的普通可编程阵列，固定大小意味着可以有效地完成许多事情。
我认为还需要避免记忆碎片，特别是当GPU被重新分配时（我想到vMotion和类似的可能的那一天）将是一个考虑因素。
确保进行常规和持续测试，质量保证和回归测试的需要会带来一些限制。
BAck移植总是需要投资额外的质量保证，不仅测试我们，还测试OEM测试实验室。
各种各样的事情是可能的，但我们必须保持质量和可靠性。
可以固定和封装CPU，但我自己的经验非常混杂，尤其是CAD / 3D应用程序 - 反向固定PTC Creo实际上提高了性能，直观的钉扎降低了它，因为一些非常严重的半光谱行为iirc。
太多配置选项通常意味着用户会陷入困境。
我不是这方面的专家 - 我希望有人会出现这种情况。
尽管我们需要知道用户故事/业务案例是什么，但我们需要了解每个功能请求....为什么你需要混合vGPU类型和证据，它值得在测试矩阵等方面进行大量扩展......
最好的祝愿，
雷切尔
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
Hi MArtin,
The restriction on homogenous (all the same) vGPU types could I guess be lifted however it's a bit like normal programmable arrays in my head, that a fixed size means many things can be done efficiently. I think also the need to avoid memmory fragmentation particularly as GPUs reassigned (I'm think of the day when vMotion and similar is possible) would be a consideration.
Some restrictions are imposed by the need to ensure cotinual and ongoing testing, QA and regression testing. BAck porting always requires investment in extra QA and test for not just us but also the OEMs test labs. All sorts of things are possible but we must maintain quality and reliability.
It is possible to pin and cap CPUs but my own experiences have been extremely mixed particularly with CAD/3D applications - reverse pinning PTC Creo actually improved performance and the intuitive pinning degraded it because of some very stragne semophore behaviour iirc. Too many configuration options can often mean users get themselves in a real muddle.
I'm not an expert in this area - I'm hoping someone who is will pop along. With every feature request though we need to know what the user story/business case is.... why you _need_ to mix vGPU types and evidence it's worth a substantial expansion in the test matrix etc...
Best wishes,
Rachel
举报
举报
