Jump to content

Chess

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Chess

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Same CPU as me. It's a beast for the momey. I had a devil of a time getting my Nvidia 1070 to passthrough until I used a second video card in the system to dump the BIOS from my card. I downloaded about a dozen BIOSes from the web, but could never make them work. After I used my own BIOS I was able to pull out the other card and run with just the one video card passed through to my VM.
  2. Easy to miss. For now stick to beta 25, looks like they have asked to see if the driver can be updated.
  3. Ah, where you using and AMD CPU by any chance? beta 25 did have a bug that had to be worked around to allow any vm with passed through CPUs to work. but it only affected AMD 3XXX CPUs.
  4. What storaage card are you using? See above below: KNOWN ISSUE: with this release we have moved to the latest Linux 5.8 stable kernel. However, we have discovered that a regression has been introduced in the mtp3sas driver used by many LSI chipsets, e.g., LSI 9201-16e. Typically looks like this on System Devices page: Serial Attached SCSI controller: Broadcom / LSI SAS2116 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 [Meteor] (rev 02)
  5. Hello @Dava2k7 are we talking about passing through a video card to a VM and then attaching the vm to a TV for video output or something else? Sorry a little confused, but passing through a video card to turn a vm into a virtual gaming system is possible, I'm trying on mine right now, but it can be a finicky process. If this is it and you have a thread that you started maybe I can help.
  6. It did for me. It was the first thing I tested
  7. Not sure what you are asking here, but VMs always worked, but there was an issue on AMD cpus with the last beta however there was a workaround to get them to work.
  8. Running beta 29 as of about an hour ago, so wanted to follow up for anyone still reading this thread. The new beta no longer needs the edits to the XML file to allow proper cpu passthrough to work and with the vm mostly idle I'm seeing about 13% usage in the VM and very similar CPU usage on the unRaid dashboard. Also, the unRaid dashboard must be pretty CPU intensive. CPU usage jumps to about 18% on the VM with it open in Chrome
  9. Odd, but this was a pinned core, with nothing using it Unpinned it and rebooted, now it's ~15% usage with jumps up to 40ish. Kind of odd for a pinned core to have that much usage on it with nothing assigned to it, but it's all good now. Good job on this version @limetech
  10. Just upgraded my AMD 9300X system, and can now use Host passthrough for the CPUs again without having to make changes to the XML. noVNC error here on any of my VMs. Only thing I see is HT thread 12 is being loaded up to 100%, but I doubt that has anything to do with the beta.
  11. This is not what you want to hear, but alas no. I still get spikes, but I no longer notice them and games don't studder on me. Let me see if I can find the thread(s) that I used to get here. I also noticed that being on the 6.9 betas made it better, but if you read the second thread you will see that unRaid is not 100% leaving the isolated cores alone, even when the VM is powered down. I'm on the VM right now and in task manager it says that my CPU usage is around 10%, but unRaid is showing all of the VMs used cores around 20 to 25% usage. The 3900x has enough power with some of the fixes in the below threads to "power" through the extra load, but older CPUs might not be able to. It's also worse on Ryzen 2 CPUs at the moment due to a bug in version of quem that the current beta is using and I can't do host pass-through at the moment. I suspect your CPU has Hyper Threading, correct? Hyper Threading can make the issue worse, so while I don't want to say turn off HT, but maybe run a test with it off and see if that improves the situation. The VM is not aware of HT and treats all cores as full CPUs and does not schedule threads properly. I believe you can tell the VM the actual CPU topology (X Cores X Threads) but I never dug too deep into it. I suspect if I did it :right" I'd see some improvement in DPI latency, but I'm at a point that works for me. Below are a few of the threads that helped me get to a playable state. Before doing all this games would studder very badly and was unplayable and for me this system was indented for game streaming, PLEX, backing up physical systems and a number of other minor functions.
  12. Did you play around with the MSI mode utility? For me to get video playback to the point it was acceptable on my vm I had to set my sound card and video card to use MSI interrupts and then reboot. Much better and way more stable. See below. It's not perfect, but much better. I still use the SMT threads (6 cores 12 threads) but I'm also on an AMD 3900x. There are threads on these forums disusing this and other solutions to try. MSI_util_v2.zip
  13. Lets see if I can help get you some ideas until other people chime in. Looks like some of your use case is similar to what I have my unRaid box for. First you want to have 2 servers running unRaid? Is there a reason you don't want all on one? Or did I just miss read what you are saying. I went from about 3 or 4 systems running down to 1 with the proper hardware. But I was not using many dockers before I moved over to unRaid. It really depends on what you want. I've used both AMD and Intel and at the end of the day there are some minor issues you might have to deal with if you go AMD. Right now there is a bug in the 6.9.x BETAs around AMD CPUS and VMs but there is a workaround to get things to work, but it should be corrected before they go release. I went with an AMD 3900x and was able to include a gaming VM to replace an AMD 2600x gaming system in the process. I use this to stream games to lower power systems in the house as well as over the internet. For me going AMD is easy, they unusually offer more cores for the same price. To get the same number of cores I did (12 cores 24 threads) I'd have to have looked at a Xeon and it would have been double what I paid for the CPU, maybe more.
  14. My guess is no, as isolcpus is deprecated, and while it does affect users, my guess is the affected user base is pretty small.
  15. Sure. I'm still getting activity on the isolated CPUs when doing a parity check or rebuild, but I can now game on the VM while this is going on without any noticeable hiccups. Right now I'm playing F1 2019 with maxed out graphic settings on a Nvidia 1070 and I lock the FPS to my refresh rate. This is on a AMD Ryzen 3900X. Below is my custom edit for my cpu. I suspect there are others that will work, but I've not given it much thought. Once the current bug is out of the beta I'll switch back to pass through and see if that works. <cpu mode='custom' match='exact' check='full'> <model fallback='forbid'>EPYC-IBPB</model> <vendor>AMD</vendor> <topology sockets='1' dies='1' cores='6' threads='2'/> <feature policy='require' name='x2apic'/> <feature policy='require' name='tsc-deadline'/> <feature policy='require' name='hypervisor'/> <feature policy='require' name='tsc_adjust'/> <feature policy='require' name='clwb'/> <feature policy='require' name='umip'/> <feature policy='require' name='stibp'/> <feature policy='require' name='arch-capabilities'/> <feature policy='require' name='ssbd'/> <feature policy='require' name='xsaves'/> <feature policy='require' name='cmp_legacy'/> <feature policy='require' name='perfctr_core'/> <feature policy='require' name='clzero'/> <feature policy='require' name='wbnoinvd'/> <feature policy='require' name='amd-ssbd'/> <feature policy='require' name='virt-ssbd'/> <feature policy='require' name='rdctl-no'/> <feature policy='require' name='skip-l1dfl-vmentry'/> <feature policy='require' name='mds-no'/> <feature policy='require' name='pschange-mc-no'/> <feature policy='disable' name='monitor'/> <feature policy='require' name='topoext'/> <feature policy='disable' name='svm'/> </cpu>