VM vs Windows on Toledo X2

[schenks]

I've been running a VM on my Toledo 4800 for a while, mostly to test some stuff out. Now that I've got some time to sit around and actually think about the numbers a bit, I've noticed that I'm really not getting any better timing on my X2 in the VM compared to when I used to run the windows client. Now, I figure this is due to the fact that the AMD processors didn't gain the AMD-V support until the Windsor X2s on socket AM2, so I would imagine that VMWare Server is defaulting back to software virtualization.

I've checked on fahinfo for some numbers, and it seems to support this, with the Toledos being ~220PPD/ghz in Windows (would put me roughly at 1100PPD vs the 950 or so I'm getting now). However, does anyone have solid PDD numbers on their X2s (preferably 1 meg Toledo --- 4400 or 4800 S939) so that I can get a better picture of what the PPD spread is?

 

[Charlie_D]

I have a toledo 4400 running under VM in SMP. I didn't switch for the speed, so much as the consistancy; the system is running Vista, and I had a horrible time with the windows SMP client. It would require babysitting to make sure it actually started properly on reboots; the VM is a set it and forget it deal, which I like.

 

[schenks]

I love the consistency for sure, but the rig is running on XP x64, which I have had different clients on running well at one time or another, so at this point, if the speed would be better in windows vs. the VM running in software mode, I'd take the speed.

 

[Charlie_D]

Ahh, I still have the F@H directory on the drive, gimme a second I'll give you some hard numbers

This could be a vista resource issue; the WinSMP client would take nearly two days to finish a WU, the VM shaved 10 hours off. It went from 1d,21h to 1d,11h. I checked my production logs, and that seems to jive. Please note I'm not going by the times listed in the FAHlog on the VM; each time the system finishes a WU, it e-mails me. I'm just checking the intervals between e-mails appearing in my inbox

During the WinSMP run(s), it was stock clocked (2.2Ghz), it was OC'd to 2.4Ghz after (it had been OC'd originally, but I was trying to rule out stability issues). That said, a 200Mhz clock won't make a 10 hour difference on it's own.

 

[schenks]

Yea, I'm averaging ~1D 18h per WU on the 2605s right now clocked at 2.5, although since this is a fileserver, it does get some usage (explaining some of the difference)....I noticed the 100 mhz gave me about 2 hours per WU though

I may end up just doing a trial run after this next WU is finished up to see where it stands anyway, because some of the swings I'm getting in normal day to day usage on here are a bit more than I would imagine being "normal" per-se, especially compared to your times. I can't imagine that IRC and an hour or two a day of video watching would increase my times by 7 hours over yours, especially considering I'm at 2.5. I'll have to do some digging and see if I can find some bottlenecks in this system somewhere along the line.

 

[BillR]

There was a time not so long ago when VM and Linux were good for roughly a 12% increase in performance. That no longer seems to be the case since the replacement clients came out.

Unless you have a Quad and want to run dual VM machines it seems the advantage is gone.

I have noticed Vista 64 folds faster then XP-Pro at the same clock speed.

 

[schenks]

So in other words, time to find another Vista 64 key for my fileserver?

wonder if the difference is from double pumped 32-bit instructions, or just general changes in the OS architecture

 

[BillR]

So in other words, time to find another Vista 64 key for my fileserver?

wonder if the difference is from double pumped 32-bit instructions, or just general changes in the OS architecture

Heh, if you have a few of those keys just laying around unused and unclaimed I'll be glad to take one or two off your hands

 

[schenks]

Heh, if you have a few of those keys just laying around unused and unclaimed I'll be glad to take one or two off your hands

More than likely it'll be calling up my dad and jacking one of his MSDN keys. I've unfortunately used all of the licenses I have on hand from school, and don't exactly want to go buying further licenses until need be. Granted, $15 for keys is really not all that bad, but $15 is still $15.