From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F0s6l-0000Dn-7K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:07 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F0s6h-0000C7-Cu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:06 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0s6h-0000C2-9G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:03 -0500
Received: from [66.249.82.207] (helo=xproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1F0sBM-00052p-Jv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:15:52 -0500
Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h29so562036wxd
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <6c3f5e6c0601221908w1a039416v5741866359ab3ef9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:08:19 -0500
From: gb spam <gbofspam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu on dual-processor host
In-Reply-To: <ef735050601220630u7901b433h@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ef735050601220630u7901b433h@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 1/22/06, G Portokalidis <georgios.portokalidis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering whether anyone has experience with installing Qemu on
> a dual-processor host?
> Reading about the problems some of you had with hyper-threading, i
> wonder if things become worse on multi-processor hosts?

I run it occasionally on an Athlon 64 x2 without incident.=20
"Occasionally" being applied to "run" not to "without incident", just
to be clear.