From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Dec 2 10:38:00 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E681CD163 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:38:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@puchar.net) Received: from puchar.net (puchar.net [194.1.144.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47RM5L3PJPz4vtG for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:37:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@puchar.net) Received: Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by puchar.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xB2AbsFn030190 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:37:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from puchar-wojtek@puchar.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=puchar.net; s=default; t=1575283074; bh=iDCpVmVzYb4q5tP7rHVaCf59RUKIX0fmx605GInFPg8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=W0VSATPrBj52F3UNvbwJkMiku6WjC4FXOrnBXQtaRy19VF4qalZV3ngYEpV/pGP4H g/vONN1JeYHjgB1eNllHinFIYXq5eORAyTEueWCM/8v/Iz+sHfT1Qlwa3KwDwOio1t z7ggxPsMzJObbUU7gfWH/1A46AKVsca1+gsOtAlw= Received: from localhost (puchar-wojtek@localhost) by puchar.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id xB2Abs5E030184 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:37:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from puchar-wojtek@puchar.net) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:37:54 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: bhyve+windows 7 multicore performance Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47RM5L3PJPz4vtG X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=puchar.net header.s=default header.b=W0VSATPr; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wojtek@puchar.net designates 194.1.144.90 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wojtek@puchar.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.61 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[puchar.net:s=default]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[puchar.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[puchar.net:-]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[90.144.1.194.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-3.31)[ip: (-8.76), ipnet: 194.1.144.0/24(-4.38), asn: 43476(-3.50), country: PL(0.07)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:43476, ipnet:194.1.144.0/24, country:PL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:38:00 -0000 i am already using bhyve to run windows 7 guests on one server, all are small guests with 1 or 2 cores allocated. Works fine with good performance. Recently i changed computer configuration in one of my client's office. Before: low end PC as unix server Dell T110-II with quad core Xeon E3 v1 running windows 7 natively After: New server with CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) E-2136 CPU @ 3.30GHz (6 cores*2 threads) as unix server with windows 7 moved to bhyve. i run bhyve VM like this: nice -n -20 /usr/sbin/bhyve -s 0,hostbridge -m 22528M \ -H -P -S -c cpus=11,sockets=1,cores=11,threads=1 \ -s 7,fbuf,rfb=10.2.3.4:5900,password=secret \ -s 3,ahci,hd:/dev/ada2p5.eli,hd:/dev/ada2p6.eli,hd:/dev/ada2p127.eli \ -s 5,virtio-net,tap0,mac=08:00:27:b7:ca:16 \ -s 30,virtio-rnd -s 31,lpc -U 0072c755-0e33-11ea-b92a-4c53821d28a6 \ -l bootrom,/usr/local/share/uefi-firmware/BHYVE_UEFI.fd -w windows And it runs properly with 11 threads available for windows. But windows feels quite slower that it was before. There is for sure no problem with I/O performance. It's about compute speed. What i do wrong?