> What is your benchmark? I've tried different ways (CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64, ATTO Disk Banchmark v2.47) all give same result. The numbers I've provided in 1st mail are for 100G file copied over. I simply subtract stop and start times. 50 seconds is so huge difference (three sigma rule gives 10 secs for 10 tries), I can even use wall clocks. When everything is enabled in BIOS it is 6:23 on real Windows versus 9:03 on virtualized... Phil Ehrens has sent me link https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2014-10/msg00036.html If I don't misunderstand, it means kvm/qemu simply is not designed for multi-threading. I guess I need to try different hypervisor. 50% performance is too high price especially when VT-x and VT-d are meant to make it 0% > Windows sometimes has scalability problems due to the way it does > timing. Try replacing "-cpu host" with "-no-hpet -cpu > host,hv_time,hv_vapic". Does not change results. > It will be a mix. Do not specify HT in the guest, unless you have HT in > the host _and_ you are pinning the two threads of each guest core to the > two threads of a host core. Do you mean "-smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=2" for 2 cores with HT enabled? Gives even worth result - 9:17 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
