From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Farkas Levente Subject: Re: kvm-50 working with smp Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <472F2703.8020205@bppiac.hu> References: <472EEAC0.5080502@bppiac.hu> <472F2323.5090400@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <472F2323.5090400-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > Farkas Levente wrote: >> hi, >> it seems the latest kvm-50 working with smp both with 32 and 64 bit >> centos-5 are now running (ie not crash), what's more it's even working >> if i trun back (ie on) acpi. but it seems much more slower with 2 guests >> 4 vcpu then kvm-36 with 2 guests single cpu. is so much slower then it >> can be recognized even just http response or anything else:-( >> another problem the windows xp guest eat 100% all the time. >> >> > > Without FlexPriority (or tpr patching) Windows SMP is very slow. It > shouldn't take 100% cpu though. If this is immediately after boot, wait > a couple of minutes to let Windows load all its services. but not just the windows are slow even all linux centos-5 32 and 64 bit version are _very_ slow much more slower than kvm-46 even the user experience is a few times slower the with kvm-46 with single cpu! -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/