[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-users] SMP enabled Dom0 or not?
- To: "Stefan de Konink" <skinkie@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Todd Deshane" <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:51:09 -0400
- Cc: xen-users <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:51:41 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:references; b=mr1kIr6H2vrHy+77Y7VD6KEYJfyhsPWa7eQ0Rdmi7qxrV6a9VZ3fHjqBrXnx+rikfJ dpdlU/n87TrBOCTCokQdHsj6To/V5iyn1A9T/rl0CmXsURzMaliZ3sG6tUR0Zm0pSl7a ZeecfOGMCoJYNLzjm1oHax7i8wYeM5X238l2c=
- List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
Hi Stefan,
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Stefan de Konink < skinkie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if the performance of a Xen machine can be increased by disabling SMP in the Linux kernel by default, basically having one of the 8 processors tied to dom0.
In my scenario I use NFS or iSCSI as file backend. Looking at NFS there will be a lot of tapdrives, while in the iSCSI scenario there is fewer overhead in userspace processes.
Could anyone give me a hint on the performance increase or decrease using SMP vs Uniprocessor?
In the original "Xen and the Art of Virtualization" they actually disabled SMP and had better IO performance. I don't know if this is still true.
Take a look at:
http://research.microsoft.com/~tharris/papers/2003-sosp.pdf
www.clarkson.edu/class/cs644/xen/files/repeatedxen-usenix04.pdf
Cheers,
Todd
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
