[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-devel] Windows SMP

  • To: "'James Harper'" <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Dirk Utterback'" <dirk.utterback@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:59:44 -0500
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:01:28 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=Hl6FeIIjl4I5mnamjDTec0dh9hDSdDDLrBfJLnqUIWr+AAnZ0KK0ZwOrCrWxREIqe8 shSBvfVl37/aS5VwyXkSMWTzjGenVHGGvE3LBfmGeGoTM29K3MFcmI13HHL9GtoMiTv8 dCjNm/HKB5OUPOjJNx/E487ojCMPPdmc7rxRU=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AclpXq3FDdh9/hRMR7SA68V92eNifgAAPoJwAAAyQsAAADKfEA==

I had to disable both, and PAE. Only APIC=0 would not make any difference. I
will some further testing with Citrix Xenserver 5, using the same virtual
machine and another copy with their vmpd drivers. I bet that there is no
difference in performance. It seems to be a Xen architectural issue. Any

-----Original Message-----
From: James Harper [mailto:james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:53 PM
To: Venefax; Dirk Utterback
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Windows SMP

> The problem is not SMP, is ACPI. I installed a non-ACPI Hal, but SMP
> capable, and the performance went right up with 4 virtual processors.
> I hope the developers can look into this mess.

Can you have ACPI enabled but APIC disabled, or is that not a valid

Or the other way around, can you have ACPI disabled but APIC enabled?

Maybe the APIC emulation is causing a performance loss?


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.