Re: Windows Desktop OS only show one CPU on bhyve even though 2-4 are assigned

[Nicolas Gilles]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:55 PM, richard  wrote:
> On 12/05/16 17:41, Allan Jude wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-12-05 05:22, Michael Braig wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I have now setup Window Desktop OS based on 8.1 and 10, but also Windows
>>> Server 2012 R2.
>>>
>>> The latter correctly shows the amount of assigned CPUs. The Desktop OSs
>>> always only show one, but also have high CPU load with especially the
>>> Windows network service.
>>>
>>> Did anybody experience this as well, anybody who can advise me on how
>>> Windows will recognize the additional CPUs?
>>>
>>> I am using an HP ML110 G7 with Xeon CPUs.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael
>>> ___
>>> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>>> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>>>
>> This question has been answered before, in the last 2-3 months, if you
>> search the archive.
>>
>> The short answer is that Windows Desktop OS only supports a single CPU
>> socket, optionally with many cores. The default in bhyve is to expose
>> each virtual CPU as a separate socket. There are a set of sysctls that
>> let you control this, so you can instead expose the 4 cpus as cores of a
>> single socket, and it will then work with Windows 8.1/10, but I don't
>> recall what they are off the top of my head, but they are in the archive
>> which you can browse here:
>>
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/
>>
> i've put
>
> hw.vmm.topology.cores_per_package=4
>
> in /boot/loader.conf
>
> richard
>
>

And did that fix your issue?

It's a little bit annoying is that this setting is "systemwide" but I
believe there was talk to make this per-vm, though I don't know
how that is coming along...


>
> ___
> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: choice of i386 vs amd64 guest

[Nicolas Gilles]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Victor Sudakov  wrote:
> Paul Vixie wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > When I must run several FreeBSD guests in bhyve, should I prefer i386
>> > or amd64 guests provided a guest will never need more than 2-3 GB of
>> > RAM?
>>
>> if you're running bind9, the sizeof(void *) will dominate your heap
>> size, and a 32-bit guest will be better overall, given that you don't
>> need the larger addressing size.
>
> Those guests will be running web servers mostly.
>
>>
>> for everything else, the larger register set on amd64 will matter more,
>> and you should probably use a 64-bit guest.
>
> There is an opinion that 64-bit systems use up more resources than
> 32-bit ones for the same tasks, it that not true?
>

Yes, in fact, it's not an opinion, it's a fact, the "issue" is that in
amd64 pointers
are 64bits wide, so take up twice as much space in memory as they would
on 32-bit mode. So if your workload/datastructures are mainly manipulating
lots of pointers you will see higher memory usage. On the other hand 64bit
has larger register set and guaranteed presence of SSE2 instructions
making it more suitable where more computations are taking place.

> --
> Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
> sip:suda...@sibptus.tomsk.ru
> ___
> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"