| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] Running Xen 2.0 for Counter Strike: Source
Did you change anything else to get this or only to 1000HZ?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bart van den
Heuvel
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:17 AM
To: Ernst Bachmann
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Running Xen 2.0 for Counter Strike: Source
Ernst,
I see what you mean, if your thougts prove to be true than vserver would
be more of an option, i would hate to leave xen the concept is very
attractive.
Now that i look at my graphs again I see a very different picture!
Please check http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/
FPS is way up! I must be going MAD....
Thanks!
Bart
> On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:37, Bart van den Heuvel wrote:
>> I have recompiled the kernels, both dom0 and domU. Counterstrike
comes
>> in
>> a compiled form (silly enterprises still do that :-)
>>
>> All is wel and i got the change to compile in the bigmem option! So
i'm
>> very happy there. I can now use more mem for my virtual servers...
But
>> thats where the happyness stops!
>>
>> Instead of a performance upgrade fps is now steady on 1, so the 1000
hz
>> options made the fps value go from 50 to 1 instead of a higher value.
>>
>> I'm running like this for a few hours... Maybe more inspiration will
>> come
>> to me.
>>
> The HZ Value sets how often timer interrups occur, so instead of
> interrupting
> work 250 times a second, you now interrupt it 1000 times.
>
> I guess timer interrupts in xen are more expensive than on plain
linux,
> since
> they also involve the hypervisor (correct me if I'm wrong here)
>
> if three domains use the same cpu, xen needs to switch the running
domain
> 3000
> times a second, I guess you waste a lot of cycles there.
>
> Another reason (wild guess) could be: the hypervisor still generates
> interrupts at 250HZ, but now the domU kernel now expects them coming
at
> 1000Hz, hence the internal timing of the kernel is way off, resulting
of
> the
> timing source of your CS server working only on full seconds now => 1
> frame
> per second max...
>
> For applications requiring short response time, a "lesser"
virtualization
> method, like linux-vserver, might provide much better performance.
>
> /Ernst
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home