From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [RFC] Scheduler work, part 1: High-level goals and interface. Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:28:20 -0700 Message-ID: <49E778C4.9090209@goop.org> References: <2b060016-4fa6-4ab7-885e-263c468689ec@default> <49E75DA5.70502@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Andrew Lyon Cc: George Dunlap , Dan Magenheimer , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Tian, Kevin" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Andrew Lyon wrote: > Is HT particularly worthwhile for virtualization loads? we have > several older servers which have ht and I found that when running > windows terminal services it actually slowed the machine down, and > under certain circumstances it seemed to cause the system to become > extremely slow and had to be rebooted, we disabled ht and the problem > went away. > > Many documents on the web recommend disabling ht for specific > workloads, and most benchmarks show that when it is benificial the > performance gain is quite small. > > Or is your plan to make use of ht in a way that gets the most benefit > with no impact under edge cases? > "New" HT, as reintroduced in i7, is supposed to be "much better". J