Linux SMP - one client or two?

[Berserker]

I can't remember what the outcome of this was, so please help me remember.

Core2Duo (slightly overclocked) - running VMWare - One Linux 64-bit SMP client or two? If two, in the same image or in different images?

Thanks.

 

[Snapshot]

You'll get a slightly higher total PPD by running two and they can be in the same VM. Remember that this will totally take over the PC as you won't get CPU cycles handed back on demand.

 

[KE1HA]

Mr Berserker,

My main rig (E6800 OC'd to 3.668) runs, VM, Ubuntu 64-Bit, 1x F@H smp installed, allocated 1GB of RAM. 4GB total disk space for the virytual machine. I have FAH as a service so I dont have to log into the Gnome Desktop, saves a good bit of RAM. On my G15 KB, rarely do I see the Ram going 50% and the CPU sits around 95%. Remember though, when your setting up your virtual machine, you need select Two Processors, and you must have VT enabled in your BIOS or the VM will not run the 64-Bit under VM.

I can still do most things I want on the windows side, but certainly not Gaming or anything CPU intensive operations.

One thing I have noticed, is when the completed WU is uploading, definately slows everything down (only for a few minutes), not sure why, but I've read that when the WU completes, there's a recompilation or something that has to happen.

I've read allot about people running 2x smp clients to get the additinal 5% or so CPU utilization, but I've not done it. There seems to be mixed results on performance so I've stuck with one instance of the smp client running.

Overall I think you'll be happy with the VM setup, I know I am, as it allows me to Monitor all my Linux boxes from one spot easily.

Here's some current Benchmarks from my VM node:

Project : 2651
Core : SMP Gromacs
Frames : 100
Credit : 1760

-- UB-VM-E6800 --

Min. Time / Frame : 10mn 14s - 2476.61 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 10mn 16s - 2468.57 ppd
No Cur. Time / Frame
No R3F. Time / Frame

Project : 2653
Core : SMP Gromacs
Frames : 100
Credit : 1760

-- UB-VM-E6800 --

Min. Time / Frame : 10mn 11s - 2488.77 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 10mn 11s - 2488.77 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 10mn 13s - 2480.65 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 10mn 11s - 2488.77 ppd
.

 

[jaric]

I run two clients in one VM. PPD is slightly higher with 2 clients - around 100 -150 PPD depending on the WU.

Open up task manager & drop the priority of vmware-vmx.exe to below normal and you can game, encode or whatever while the VM is running as they will all then have higher priority than the VM.

 

[Cob]

I run two clients in one VM. PPD is slightly higher with 2 clients - around 100 -150 PPD depending on the WU.

Open up task manager & drop the priority of vmware-vmx.exe to below normal and you can game, encode or whatever while the VM is running as they will all then have higher priority than the VM.

Yup. Well it's not quite perfect but it works.

I've just switched back over to Windows and I'm running two clients in each of two VM's. Each VM has 712mb of RAM and I've given VMWare itself 2gb as i can afford to.

 

[Mattus]

I've tried both and the PPD was pretty much identical. I think that was because my chip only has 2MB cache. If yours has 4MB then it might benefit from the extra client.

 

[Berserker]

I've been running VM pretty much since it was possible. I've just been optimising a bit.

PS - no slowdowns running Linux inside Linux. Or at least, no noticeable ones. I do find the clock in the VM instance sometimes goes a bit astray (which messes up frame time calculations, but a quick 'apt-get install ntp-server' soon fixed that.

Now running an E6600 with a 20% overclock and 2x SMP. I'll see how that goes - the PPD benefit does seem to just about exist, but it's certainly marginal.

For my next trick - a Q6600 - maybe.