| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] SMP enabled Dom0 or not?
Dear Mark
The million dollar question: how? Where is the documentation that can help
me do that? I mean, tie-up one core Dom0 and simultaneously remove that core
from the other DumUs
-----Original Message-----
From: M.A. Williamson [mailto:maw48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark
Williamson
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:57 AM
To: Venefax
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] SMP enabled Dom0 or not?
> Question:
> How can I dedicate one CPU for Dom0 only and also how can I remove that
CPU
> so it is not available to the other VM's? Is there a configuration file
> somewhere? I need top network IO performance for my VM's, since each one
is
> a VOIP softswitch.
>
>
You need to do this manually by setting the other domUs config files (or
issuing xm commands at runtime) so that they do not run on the CPU that dom0
is running on.
Cheers,
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark
Williamson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:07 PM
> To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: deshantm@xxxxxxxxx; Stefan de Konink
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] SMP enabled Dom0 or not?
>
> > > I wonder if the performance of a Xen machine can be increased by
> > > disabling SMP in the Linux kernel by default, basically having one
> > > of the 8 processors tied to dom0.
>
> Devoting a (logical) processor to dom0 can improve IO performance for
> guests,
> it's true. Note that even just dedicating a hyperthread (if you have
them)
> can improve things.
>
> > > In my scenario I use NFS or iSCSI as file backend. Looking at NFS
> > > there will be a lot of tapdrives, while in the iSCSI scenario
there
> > > is fewer overhead in userspace processes.
> > >
> > > Could anyone give me a hint on the performance increase or
decrease
> > > using SMP vs Uniprocessor?
>
> FYI, XenLinux will automatically optimise itself for UP or SMP operation
> without you having to recompile. The spinlock operations are patched out
> if
>
> the kernel is booted in UP, or patched in for SMP. Whatsmore, I think
this
> is even done at runtime, so a kernel can SMP-ify or de-SMP-ify itself on
> the
>
> fly (!). I think this might have gone into mainline Linux a while back,
> actually.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually not possible to run a pure UP
dom0
> on
> an SMP system but I don't know for sure.
>
> > > In the original "Xen and the Art of Virtualization" they actually
> > > disabled SMP and had better IO performance. I don't know if this is
> > > still true.
> > >
> > > Take a look at:
> > > http://research.microsoft.com/~tharris/papers/2003-sosp.pdf
> > > www.clarkson.edu/class/cs644/xen/files/repeatedxen-usenix04.pdf
> > >
<http://www.clarkson.edu/class/cs644/xen/files/repeatedxen-usenix04.pdf
> > >>
> >
> > Now I guess in 2003 there was no concept like tapdisk yet. I'll see if I
> > can get a clean benchmark. Of 32 VMs doing the same task, SMP vs
non-SMP.
>
> Back then dom0 didn't even handle IO for the domains, it was all done in
> Xen ;-) Things have moved on quite a long way since then!
>
> Worth noting that if the processes in dom0 are just doing IO then they'll
> be
>
> blocked most of the time, so the performance may depend less on the number
> of
> CPUs available to dom0 and more on the regularity of scheduling (i.e.
> deploying a dom0 with dedicated PCPUs is probably the ultimate here).
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
--
Push Me Pull You - Distributed SCM tool
(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~maw48/pmpu/)
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home