From: Lars Marowsky-B. <lm...@su...> - 2002-02-09 10:25:51
|
Hi guys, I have been watching UML development from a distance because of other duties - which luckily are going away slowly again and I will be able to spend more time on cool stuff(tm) again. So, my last performance numbers showed that UML were approx 50% as fast as the host system; is that still true with the latest? The 50% "loss"; is that real loss or performance just not available inside UML but "idle" on the host (which might mean that 2 UMLs would be able to deliver ~100% of the host performance total)? I recall that the 50% "loss" was mostly due to scheduling overhead. Second, might Ingo's latest scheduler improve that number? Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <lm...@su...> -- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl |
From: Patrick T. <us...@ut...> - 2002-02-09 21:52:49
|
Sir, I am interested in this line of questioning as well - please note the recent (last week?) correspondence that I had on this list regarding that question: (I ask about my quad-processor machine running ~64 UMLs at one time) ---- us...@ut... said: > 1. Anything I should know about running UML instances on this ? I > just saw a usenet post saying there were some problems with UML on > multiprocessor machines ... any comments on this setup appreciated. There needs to be a fix on the host in order for UML to be at all reliable on SMP hosts. I'll work up a fix at some point for the problem. > 2. Let's say my instances consist of normal stuff like syslog, cron, > sendmail and sshd, and that most of them are also running something > like named, or a httpd with light traffic, and maybe some are even > running mysql or postgres. The question is, how many of these > non-intensive UML instances would you think I could successfully run > on this machine? > (I am hoping to run about 64 of them for QA/test purposes ... fantasy > ?) Based on that description of the load and the host, I would guess that 64 wouldn't be a problem. If their activity is synchronized (i.e. they all (or a lot of them) wake up at the same time), then I would say there would likely be performance problems. But if not, then I don't see much of a problem. Jeff ------ On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have been watching UML development from a distance because of other dut= ies - > which luckily are going away slowly again and I will be able to spend mor= e > time on cool stuff(tm) again. > > So, my last performance numbers showed that UML were approx 50% as fast a= s the > host system; is that still true with the latest? > > The 50% "loss"; is that real loss or performance just not available insid= e UML > but "idle" on the host (which might mean that 2 UMLs would be able to del= iver > ~100% of the host performance total)? I recall that the 50% "loss" was mo= stly > due to scheduling overhead. > > Second, might Ingo's latest scheduler improve that number? > > > Sincerely, > Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e <lm...@su...> > > -- > Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl > > > _______________________________________________ > User-mode-linux-user mailing list > Use...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user > |
From: Howard G. <Ho...@at...> - 2002-02-21 11:35:49
|
Is there a way to signal a UML to shutdown from the like when the power fails and the host's power-fail script runs. Or a way to send a CTRL-ALT-DELETE to a UML from the host with a script. Thanks, Howard |
From: Douglas F. <fi...@ii...> - 2002-02-18 18:04:45
|
I just run some test of the integer performance of of UML instance on my machine with a kernel 2.5.1 I just built. I saw pratically no difference in integer performance between the host system and the uml system. I am going to test DOUBLE here soon and when I do I will graph my results and post a link to them here. =20 This is only a cpu test, good for questions regarding compute intensive processes but not a network test or disk IO test. =20 take care doug On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 04:27, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > Hi guys, >=20 > I have been watching UML development from a distance because of other dut= ies - > which luckily are going away slowly again and I will be able to spend mor= e > time on cool stuff(tm) again. >=20 > So, my last performance numbers showed that UML were approx 50% as fast a= s the > host system; is that still true with the latest? >=20 > The 50% "loss"; is that real loss or performance just not available insid= e UML > but "idle" on the host (which might mean that 2 UMLs would be able to del= iver > ~100% of the host performance total)? I recall that the 50% "loss" was mo= stly > due to scheduling overhead. >=20 > Second, might Ingo's latest scheduler improve that number? >=20 >=20 > Sincerely, > Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e <lm...@su...> >=20 > --=20 > Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > User-mode-linux-user mailing list > Use...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user |