KayakNate

Sorry to revive an old thread. New to unraid and recently built a machine with a 5700g, not realizing that there isn't much useful info that will display on the monitor connected to the actual unraid machines attached monitor. Been searching for some kind of status plugin or something that will display useful info on the machines monitor. This old post is sort of what I'm looking for. But it hasn't been updated in a while. Is there something like this that is current, or can someone suggest search terms to help me find something that will display stats or statuses of some sort on the monitor connected to the actual unraid box?

Read this whole thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=56658.0 Specifically the long post by 1812

Well would you look at that. It worked. Thank you! How have I never stumbled across this setting before? You have any idea what this setting actually adjusts on the backend?

If that were it, what do I do to try to resolve and test if that's the case.

I've seen some old forum posts about this, but none that have a solution. Every time I try to boot my VMs, they fail the first time. No errors in the logs. They boot successfuly every other time. Consistently. Wierd. The logs always looks like this: 017-02-17 03:06:43.971+0000: starting up libvirt version: 2.4.0, qemu version: 2.7.1, hostname: 2Gamers1PC LC_ALL=C PATH=/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin HOME=/ QEMU_AUDIO_DRV=none /usr/local/sbin/qemu -name guest=Gamer2,debug-threads=on -S -object secret,id=masterKey0,format=raw,file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-Gamer2/master-key.aes -machine pc-i440fx-2.7,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off,mem-merge=off -cpu host,hv_time,hv_relaxed,hv_vapic,hv_spinlocks=0x1fff,hv_vendor_id=none -drive file=/usr/share/qemu/ovmf-x64/OVMF_CODE-pure-efi.fd,if=pflash,format=raw,unit=0,readonly=on -drive file=/etc/libvirt/qemu/nvram/a730af8a-aec7-479e-ac3f-ff00fdad805f_VARS-pure-efi.fd,if=pflash,format=raw,unit=1 -m 20480 -realtime mlock=off -smp 10,sockets=1,cores=5,threads=2 -uuid a730af8a-aec7-479e-ac3f-ff00fdad805f -display none -no-user-config -nodefaults -chardev socket,id=charmonitor,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-Gamer2/monitor.sock,server,nowait -mon chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control -rtc base=localtime -no-hpet -no-shutdown -boot strict=on -device ich9-usb-ehci1,id=usb,bus=ice ide-hd,bus=sata0.3,drive=drive-sata0-0-3,id=sata0-0-3 -netdev tap,fd=25,id=hostnet0,vhost=on,vhostfd=28 -device virtio-net-pci,netdev=hostnet0,id=net0,mac=52:54:00:a4:f7:fe,bus=pci.0,addr=0x2 -chardev pty,id=charserial0 -device isa-serial,chardev=charserial0,id=serial0 -chardev socket,id=charchannel0,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/channel/target/domain-2-Gamer2/org.qemu.guest_agent.0,server,nowait -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial0.0,nr=1,chardev=charchannel0,id=channel0,name=org.qemu.guest_agent.0 -device vfio-pci,host=04:00.0,id=hostdev0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x5 -device vfio-pci,host=04:00.1,id=hostdev1,bus=pci.0,addr=0x6 -device usb-host,hostbus=9,hostaddr=3,id=hostdev2,bus=usb.0,port=1 -device usb-host,hostbus=9,hostaddr=2,id=hostdev3,bus=usb.0,port=2 -device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x8 -msg timestamp=on Domain id=2 is tainted: high-privileges Domain id=2 is tainted: host-cpu char device redirected to /dev/pts/1 (label charserial0) 2017-02-17T03:07:14.857953Z qemu-system-x86_64: terminating on signal 15 from pid 2551 2017-02-17 03:07:17.887+0000: shutting down, reason=shutdown The "tainted" parts in those last few lines are what other posters have titled their topics with in the past, it's the only thing that seems like a clue as to what's going on. This doesn't seem to be a huge issue because I just have to start twice every time and then I'm good, but does anyone know why this is happening?

Ok. I definitely now understand the benifits of doing the CPUs the way that you say. But being that I'm using this for gaming, and therefore my CPUs WOULD be maxed out at the same time, means that my situation might be different. Which as you said, means I need to do some of my own testing. Thank you for that detailed response. It gives me a good basepoint and better understanding as to why some of my results might not match what I previously might have guessed. I'll report back when testing is done.

This looks like it would save me some testing, but I'm having a hard time interpreting some of this. Lol. It's a little dense and deals with not only testing vm's on single threaded cores for performance, but also paired threads, and presenting different virtual topology to see how the vm's reacts differently. But, it allowed me to fine-tune my setup and I know how to get the most out of all vm's I run, plus the pros and cons of each different setup. Based off of your findings, and the pic of my available CPUs above, does the above configuration I've put follow your most successful tests?

This looks like it would save me some testing, but I'm having a hard time interpreting some of this. Lol.

Gaming. Gaming isn't nearly as CPU intensive as it used to be, considering that most games have a really hard time making good user of the extra cores. Now if each VM is going to be streaming to Twitch and capturing/encoding content while you're gaming, maybe more core assignments are necessary, but if you're just gaming for the sake of gaming, you could easily drop your core assignments dramatically and you wouldn't notice much of a difference in framerate/quality. While this is sometimes true, there are games that do use 4 cores completely, as well as a few that even use all the hyperthreading. The Division maxes out almost every modern CPUs real cores. Overwatch is multi-threaded like a beast and totally maxes out most CPUs as well. I don't have any other purpose for this machine. Already have a separate Plex box and separate NAS. So I figure there is no reason to not use as many cores as are available. I've switched it to the configuration I listed above. I don't see any immediate differences, but I'll sleep better knowing that my hardware is more appropriately allocated.

Gaming.

Ok. This ideal then?: VM1 cores 1,13,2,14,3,15,4,16,5,17 VM2 cores 7,19,8,20,9,21,10,22,11,23

Makes sense that scaling limitations wouldn't just let you double your power. GPUs deal with the same issue. But I'd like to give the machine the best power and scalabitly I can. So in my attached image, the first row is 0/12. Does that mean that 0 is a real core and 12 it its HT counterpart? If so, I'm guessing the correct load if VM1 was running cinebench would be the top 6 rows are all at 100%. Mine's currently not set up like that. Mine is setup so when VM1 in benchmarking, the left column is at 100%.

Doing some testing on my setup yesterday, I noticed an interesting benchmark result. With both of my VMs running, but ony one VM running Cinebench, it gets a score of ~900. With both VMs running and both VMs running Cinebench, they each get a score of 645. This is an acceptable score still, but it makes me wonder a couple things: 1) When unRAID lists the CPUs to be chosen for a VM, which are real cores and which are HT? Is it evens real odd HT, or first half listed real, second have HT, etc.? I have two CPUS and trying to make sure one VM has one whole CPU (real and HT) and the other VM has the other whole CPU. To not mix instructions across CPUs. These have QPI...but still. 2) If the hardware that would be used by Cinebench for each VM is independent, why would I get a slow down doing both at the same time? Northbridge limitation?

Running VM vs bare metal is very different, you may find giving each VM the bare minimum of RAM required for the apps they run and allowing the KVM host to use as much RAM as it can to speed up the emulation and file access of the guests will provide a better VM experience. Are you saying that I should leave unRAID with more than 11% (5GB) of leftover RAM to get better performance?

Rebuilt my setup completely from scratchwith 6.3.1 and everything seems to be normal. Both VMs set to 20GB RAM and dashboard sits at a steady 89% used. Thanks for your help, everyone.