WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)

To: "Daniel Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)
From: "Todd Deshane" <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:42:14 -0400
Cc: xen-devel mailing list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:42:37 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=0b1i3jMjdNDiZaJYJCsAOr2O21jc7PV/jkdmq1paZoo=; b=WOG+1rIfWeSqT/xn1R99oV92kpKnwv4DyRHGBrLR1QFqtM+FXLUzvE6ui26M0fYVHu cRU9fHJAH+wydmCCmTCDs6N/2seAl524ZkyFps3D7f+laJJlyzMQbs5NxneqbPS7uFtX zkDB0dgGkrdnhGXF3J1uK7PfkBJp5wad7Z5NY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=AKJe2jsCaqhGj7t5fw4xetjm1bJyGXRJ2HYye7qetDgTH6QK+DB0HlHdlEcOPeSUgb qs88qC1xJMhAVyhn+bqZrQMOBsqF4in8KGMTKKvKhjcnUPvrAO1l/JjGtLMWTv6BQhAO BVGv05VIqR5GM6lgcnrIN+w4DK+AJt3fR3ph8=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <e0f1c7f4-7bc5-4d64-8409-464ade1d749f@default>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1e16a9ed0809101123m71a12030v7d06501f6467f93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <e0f1c7f4-7bc5-4d64-8409-464ade1d749f@default>
Reply-to: deshantm@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Magenheimer
<dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This doesn't answer the HVM question but it appears that
> you are running guests with 1 vCPU but comparing against
> a dual-CPU native.  True?

Yes. The intuition is that we don't want to overcommit virtual CPUs
since then you are stressing the schedulers more.

I ran some tests with 2 vCPUs and all the numbers are a bit higher (as
having two CPUs tackling a compile is faster).

Although overcommit (of CPUs and memory ;) is interesting, we leave a
CPU dedicated to the host system (linux/dom0)
on purpose.

Todd

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel