| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] HVM Multi-Processor Performance followup
I used the workfile.compute for those results.
I will redo the tests with some different parameters tomorrow.
---
Kayvan Sylvan, Platform Solutions Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
To: Xu, Anthony <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kayvan Sylvan; xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Jan 31 18:47:14 2008
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] HVM Multi-Processor Performance followup
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 09:11 +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
> Thanks for your efforts
>
> You can see the drop in performance starts to get really bad at about
> 9 CPUs and beyond
>
> If you increase guest vCPU number, the bottleneck may be dom0 vCPU
> number( only 1vCPU for dom0).
>
> You can try configure two/four vCPU for dom0, the performance may be
> back.
>
> a curious question,
>
> Alex said there are ~70% degradation on RE-AIM7,
> Your test result seems much better than his.
>
> What's the difference of your test environment?
re-aim-7 provides a number of different workloads. I was
specifically running the high_systime workload to try to get the worst
case performance out of an HVM domain. Anything that involves more time
spent running code in user space will lean more towards the results I
showed for the kernel build test. What workload was this?
Kayvan, when you ran the native test, did you also limit the memory
using the mem= boot option? I would expect that you need to increase
the guest memory as vCPUs are increased, or you may be getting into a
scenario where memory management in the guest or even swapping comes
into play. Thanks,
Alex
--
Alex Williamson HP Open Source & Linux Org.
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home