On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:00:53AM -0600, Rich Smrcina wrote: > That varies based on processor. The bigger the processor the smaller > load the timer code puts on it. On a G5 I saw about .3% CPU Utilization > from an idle machine without the patch. On a z800 it drops to about > .1%. On a z900 it is probably negligible. But 100 machines on a z900 > without the timer patch would be measurable.
Also remember that the real gain is for the rest of the system, because a guest who's popping his timer never really gets idle. For a production workload where most machines are busy most of the time, that's probably OK. On the other hand, for a development system (such as ours) where there are a bunnch of virtual machines with various projects on them, only a couple of which are active at any time, I would rather have those guys really really idle if I'm not using them. On an H70, I can confirm that we see about .3% CPU per guest when it's otherwise idle, if it's doing a 100Hz timer pop. Adam
