Two works well for us.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: To define virtual processors or not
On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Paul Vincent wrote:
Hello List,
I'm new to z/VM and have a question. Should I define virtual
processors to
z/VM service ids/guests (TCPIP, Linux guests...) with the 'MACHINE
ESA ## &
CPU #' control statements in the USER DIRECT file? Is there a
performance
benefit/cost, if I have more than 1 IFL, to define virtual
processors equal
to the number of IFLs? Or will a single virtual processor perform
just
fine.
I like defining two (assuming that my real load is less than two full
engines' worth) or as-many-as-I-expect-to-be-able-to-use-if-more-than-
two.
Basically, this is to give my workload the best chance of parallel
dispatch. If I only have one virtual processor, I only have one thing
*really* going on at a time in my Linux guest, even if the actual work
is hopping around real processors. I don't have any hard data that
tells me this is really working, though. Does anyone?
Adam
