administrator Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/10/2019 at 5:11 PM, Rick Sanchez said: Thanks, for your help! How can I prevent the VM from sleeping? Those settings would be handled by the VM itself. The host OS will not automatically hibernate the VM. Quote Link to comment
dnLL Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) Sorry if this has already been asked, I couldn't find an answer (please point me in the right direction if there is one available); I have a 4-core CPU with HT, so 8 threads total. Most of my VMs have VERY light workload and would be totally fine with 1 hyperthreading thread without needing the full core. In fact, it's been working that way for a while until I decided to question whether it was optimal or not. Let's say I have 10 VMs with the following CPU pinnings: VM 1: vCPU 0, 4 VM 2: vCPU 0, 4 VM 3: vCPU 1, 5 VM 4: vCPU 1, 5 VM 5: vCPU 2 VM 6: vCPU 3 VM 7: vCPU 6 VM 8: vCPU 7 VM 9: vCPU 7 VM 10: vCPU 7 Is there anything wrong here, assuming the VMs sharing the same vCPU never really use more than ~10% load, or is assigning a HyperThreading core to a VM without assigning the full core simply wrong (and why)? Edited May 31, 2019 by dnLL Quote Link to comment
bastl Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 @dnLL Keep in mind, if a VM fully utilises let's say a HT core, the performance of that physical core is also affected. If you don't have such high workloads you might be fine and won't see any issues but in general it's the best idea to use the physical and the ht core at the same time in a VM. Also core 0 is always used by unraid itself. If you fully utilise this core you kinda affecting all other VMs. All the IO load, networking and storage access for example is handled by unraid and can kinda easily reduce your overall system performance in this way. 10 VMs running on 8 threads sooner or later you will have some issues. Quote Link to comment
dnLL Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bastl said: @dnLL Keep in mind, if a VM fully utilises let's say a HT core, the performance of that physical core is also affected. If you don't have such high workloads you might be fine and won't see any issues but in general it's the best idea to use the physical and the ht core at the same time in a VM. Also core 0 is always used by unraid itself. If you fully utilise this core you kinda affecting all other VMs. All the IO load, networking and storage access for example is handled by unraid and can kinda easily reduce your overall system performance in this way. 10 VMs running on 8 threads sooner or later you will have some issues. In fact I have 7 VMs and 1 docker. Some of the VMs barely use 100MB of RAM and any CPU at all, they could be in dockers in fact but that's another debate. I made some changes now, having all my VMs using a full core with its hyper thread. Core 0 (with HT) is pinned to nothing, Core 1 (with HT) is pinned to my two most important VMs (still light workload), Core 2 (with HT) is pinned to a VM with a higher workload and Core 3 (with HT) is pinned to my last 3 VMs which aren't that important. This way unRAID has Core 0 for itself. Now as for my Plex docker, I used something I don't see suggested at all in the FAQ and it's the --cpus=6 parameter, which gives access to 75% (6/8) of every core/thread rather than locking the docker to specific cores/threads. So assuming my Plex docker is doing very hard work, it will never use more than 75% per core, leaving at least 25% of a full core to the VMs and to unRAID itself. I think I'm covering most of my workload possibilities this way after doing some quick tests (obviously if Plex is taking 75% of everything and a VM needs its full core, they will challenge each other for CPU resources but it's fine). One last question as I was reading from some old posts that the VM couldn't know if its 2 vCPUs were a HyperThread core or just 2 random cores/threads. People were adding parameters to their XMLs to make sure KVM let the VM know it's a core with HT. Is that still necessary? Edited May 31, 2019 by dnLL Quote Link to comment
bastl Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 23 minutes ago, dnLL said: One last question as I was reading from some old posts that the VM couldn't know if its 2 vCPUs were a HyperThread core or just 2 random cores/threads. People were adding parameters to their XMLs to make sure KVM let the VM know it's a core with HT. Is that still necessary? Not actual sure what you mean by that. You can define a core topology in the xml to "emulate" different kind of CPU models and core topolgies. For example you can emulate a 2 socket CPU with let's say 2 cores each or specific CPU features. Good start if you wanna dive deeper into the topic is the RedHat documentation. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/virtualization_deployment_and_administration_guide/sect-manipulating_the_domain_xml-cpu_model_and_topology Quote Link to comment
dnLL Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, bastl said: Not actual sure what you mean by that. You can define a core topology in the xml to "emulate" different kind of CPU models and core topolgies. For example you can emulate a 2 socket CPU with let's say 2 cores each or specific CPU features. Good start if you wanna dive deeper into the topic is the RedHat documentation. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/virtualization_deployment_and_administration_guide/sect-manipulating_the_domain_xml-cpu_model_and_topology Sorry, that probably wasn't very clear. Basically OS handle threads differently if they belong to the same core, but for VMs it's usually just vCPUs without any way for the VM to know if the 2 threads are from the same core or not. I saw some "hacks" (ie. not limiting yourself to the unRAID webUI) to basically make sure the VM would properly use the 2 threads as a full core with HT rather than 2 distinctive threads from 2 separate cores. Edited May 31, 2019 by dnLL Quote Link to comment
bastl Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 @dnLL the "topology" section basically does this in the xml. 1 core with HT: <topology sockets='1' cores='1' threads='2'/> 2 cores without HT: <topology sockets='1' cores='2' threads='1'/> Quote Link to comment
dnLL Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Funnily enough after pinning all my VMs to a full core, some switched their topology correctly to 1c2t, others still had 2c1t. Not sure how the webUI handles all of this when not using the XML form format. Quote Link to comment
bastl Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Not 100% sure how Unraid handles it. Maybe it depends on the template you have choosen during the VM setup or the cores you selected. In general I manual adjust it for the cores I have selected. Quote Link to comment
hmoney007 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 On 5/12/2016 at 6:13 AM, dlandon said: There have been several posts on the forum about VM performance improvements by adjusting CPU pinning and assignments in cases of VMs stuttering on media playback and gaming. I've put together what I think is the best of those ideas. I don't necessarily think this is the total answer, but it has helped me with a particularly latency sensitive VM. Windows VM Configuration You need to have a well configured Windows VM in order to get any improvement with CPU pinning. Have your VM configured as follows: Set machine type to the latest i440fx.. Boot in OVMF and not seaBIOS for Windows 8 and Windows 10. Your GPU must support UEFI boot if you are doing GPU passthrough. Set Hyper-V to 'yes' unless you need it off for Nvidia GPUs. Don't initially assign more that 8 GB of memory and set 'Initial' and 'Max' memory at the same value so memory ballooning is off. Don't assign more than 4 CPUs total. Assign CPUs in pairs to your VM if it supports Hyperthreading. Be sure you are using the latest GPU driver. I have had issues with virtio network drivers newer than 0.1.100 on Windows 7. Try that driver first and then update once your VM is performing properly. Get the best performance you can by adjusting the memory and CPU settings. Don't over provision CPUs and memory. You may find that the performance will decrease. More is not always better. If you have more than 8GB of memory in your unRAID system, I also suggest installing the 'Tips and Tweaks' plugin and setting the 'Disk Cache' settings to the suggested values for VMs. Click the 'Help' button for the suggestions. Also set 'Disable NIC flow control' and 'Disable NIC offload' to 'Yes'. These settings are known to cause VM performance issues in some cases. You can always go back and change them later. Once you have your VM running correctly, you can then adjust CPU pinning to possibly improve the performance. Unless you have your VM configured as above, you will probably be wasting your time with CPU pinning. What is Hyperthreading? Hyper threading is a means to share one CPU core with multiple processes. The architecture of a hyperthread core is a core and two hyperthreads. It looks like this: HT ---- core ---- HT It is not a base core and a HT: core ---- HT When isolating CPUs, the best performance is gained by isolating and assigning both pairs for a VM, not just what some think as the '"core". Why Isolate and Assign CPUs Some VMs suffer from latency because of sharing the hyperthreaded cpus. The method I have described here helps with the latency caused by cpu sharing and context switching between hyperthreads. If you have a VM that is suffering from stuttering or pauses in media playback or gaming, this procedure may help. Don't assign more cpus to a VM that has latency issues. That is generally not the issue. I also don't recommend assigning more than 4 cpus to a VM. I don't know why any VM needs that kind of horsepower. In my case I have a Xeon 4 core processor with Hyperthreading. The CPU layout is: 0,4 1,5 2,6 3,7 The Hyperthread pairs are (0,4) (1,5) (2,6) and (3,7). This means that one core is used for two Hyperthreads. When assigning CPUs to a high performance VM, CPUs should be assigned in Hyperthread pairs. I isolated some CPUs to be used by the VM from Linux with the following in the syslinux configuration on the flash drive: append isolcpus=2,3,6,7 initrd=/bzroot This tells Linux that the physical CPUs 2,3,6 and 7 are not to be managed or used by Linux. There is an additional setting for vcpus called 'emulatorpin'. The 'emulatorpin' entry puts the emulator tasks on other CPUs and off the VM CPUs. I then assigned the isolated CPUs to my VM and added the 'emulatorpin': <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='2'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='3'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='6'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='7'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='0,4'/> </cputune> What ends up happening is that the 4 logical CPUs (2,3,6,7) are not used by Linux but are available to assign to VMs. I then assigned them to the VM and pinned emulator tasks to CPUs (0,4). This is the first CPU pair. Linux tends to favor the low numbered CPUs. Make your CPU assignments in the VM editor and then edit the xml and add the emulatorpin assignment. Don't change any other CPU settings in the xml. I've seen recommendations to change the topology: <cpu mode='host-passthrough'> <topology sockets='1' cores='2' threads='2'/> </cpu> Don't make any changes to this setting. The VM manager does it appropriately. There is no advantage in making changes and it can cause problems like a VM that crashes. This has greatly improved the performance of my Windows 7 Media Center VM serving Media Center Extenders. I am not a KVM expert and this may not be the best way to do this, but in reading some forum posts and searching the internet, this is the best I've found so far. I would like to see LT offer some performance tuning settings in the VM manager that would help with these settings to improve performance in a VM without all the gyrations I've done here to get the performance I need in my VM. They could at least offer some 'emulatorpin' settings. Note: I still see confusion about physical CPUs, vcpus, and hyperthreaded pairs. CPU pairs like 3,7 are two threads that share a core. It is not a core with a hyperthread. When isolating and assigning CPUs to a VM, do it in pairs. Don't isolate and assign one (3) and not its pair (7) unless you don't assign 7 to any other VM. This is not going to give you what you want. vcpus are relative to the VM only. You don't isolate vcpus, you isolate physical CPUs that are then assigned to VM vcpus. 3 years later, are there any changes and/or additions to the VM settings available in unRAID's vm creation template that you'd suggest? Quote Link to comment
mucflyer Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 Dear all I'm really struggling to get good performance on W10 machine. It is used mainly for gaming. But always lagging in games. Syslinux: kernel /bzimage append isolcpus=4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 pcie_acs_override=downstream vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1 initrd=/bzroot W10 machine : 16GB assigned. -------- <type arch='x86_64' machine='pc-q35-3.1'>hvm</type> -------- <vcpu placement='static'>8</vcpu> <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='12'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='28'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='13'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='29'/> <vcpupin vcpu='4' cpuset='14'/> <vcpupin vcpu='5' cpuset='30'/> <vcpupin vcpu='6' cpuset='15'/> <vcpupin vcpu='7' cpuset='31'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='0,16'/> </cputune> System is on SSD : <disk type='block' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='writeback'/> <source dev='/dev/disk/by-id/ata-CT1000MX500SSD1_1902E1E1D374'/> <backingStore/> <target dev='hdc' bus='virtio'/> Nvidia 960 : Please, any help is really appreciated, I thought should be better...But is not as good as expected in terms of performance. Quote Link to comment
elbro_dark Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 8 hours ago, mucflyer said: Dear all I'm really struggling to get good performance on W10 machine. It is used mainly for gaming. But always lagging in games. Syslinux: kernel /bzimage append isolcpus=4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 pcie_acs_override=downstream vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1 initrd=/bzroot W10 machine : 16GB assigned. -------- <type arch='x86_64' machine='pc-q35-3.1'>hvm</type> -------- <vcpu placement='static'>8</vcpu> <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='12'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='28'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='13'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='29'/> <vcpupin vcpu='4' cpuset='14'/> <vcpupin vcpu='5' cpuset='30'/> <vcpupin vcpu='6' cpuset='15'/> <vcpupin vcpu='7' cpuset='31'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='0,16'/> </cputune> System is on SSD : <disk type='block' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='writeback'/> <source dev='/dev/disk/by-id/ata-CT1000MX500SSD1_1902E1E1D374'/> <backingStore/> <target dev='hdc' bus='virtio'/> Nvidia 960 : Please, any help is really appreciated, I thought should be better...But is not as good as expected in terms of performance. I´m no expert.... but have you tried to run the system with disabled Hyperthreading? ( it got my system a little "boost") and only using 8GB instead of 16gb? In my setup i always got fps-drops from 60 to 12, dont know why... I hope i could help. Quote Link to comment
testdasi Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 11 hours ago, mucflyer said: Dear all I'm really struggling to get good performance on W10 machine. It is used mainly for gaming. But always lagging in games. Syslinux: kernel /bzimage append isolcpus=4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 pcie_acs_override=downstream vfio_iommu_type1.allow_unsafe_interrupts=1 initrd=/bzroot W10 machine : 16GB assigned. -------- <type arch='x86_64' machine='pc-q35-3.1'>hvm</type> -------- <vcpu placement='static'>8</vcpu> <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='12'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='28'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='13'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='29'/> <vcpupin vcpu='4' cpuset='14'/> <vcpupin vcpu='5' cpuset='30'/> <vcpupin vcpu='6' cpuset='15'/> <vcpupin vcpu='7' cpuset='31'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='0,16'/> </cputune> System is on SSD : <disk type='block' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' cache='writeback'/> <source dev='/dev/disk/by-id/ata-CT1000MX500SSD1_1902E1E1D374'/> <backingStore/> <target dev='hdc' bus='virtio'/> Nvidia 960 : Please, any help is really appreciated, I thought should be better...But is not as good as expected in terms of performance. Q35 machine. Do you have this section of code in the xml, before </domain>? If not, add it. Otherwise your GPU runs at PCIe x1. <qemu:commandline> <qemu:arg value='-global'/> <qemu:arg value='pcie-root-port.speed=8'/> <qemu:arg value='-global'/> <qemu:arg value='pcie-root-port.width=16'/> </qemu:commandline> Quote Link to comment
jbartlett Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 No feedback yet on @mucflyer's request but are you able to pass the graphics card through without using pcie_acs_override? Enabling that is known to cause lag. Quote Link to comment
fluisterben Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 On 5/12/2016 at 1:13 PM, dlandon said: I isolated some CPUs to be used by the VM from Linux with the following in the syslinux configuration on the flash drive: append isolcpus=2,3,6,7 initrd=/bzroot This tells Linux that the physical CPUs 2,3,6 and 7 are not to be managed or used by Linux. There is an additional setting for vcpus called 'emulatorpin'. The 'emulatorpin' entry puts the emulator tasks on other CPUs and off the VM CPUs. I then assigned the isolated CPUs to my VM and added the 'emulatorpin': <cputune> <vcpupin vcpu='0' cpuset='2'/> <vcpupin vcpu='1' cpuset='3'/> <vcpupin vcpu='2' cpuset='6'/> <vcpupin vcpu='3' cpuset='7'/> <emulatorpin cpuset='0,4'/> </cputune> Just wanted to add how I expanded on this a little; Here's my /boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg default menu.c32 menu title Lime Technology, Inc. prompt 0 timeout 30 label Unraid OS menu default kernel /bzimage append tpcie_acs_override=downstream,multifunction isolcpus=2,8,4,10 nohz_full=2,8,4,10 rcu_nocbs=2,8,4,10 initrd=/bzroot label Unraid OS GUI Mode kernel /bzimage append pcie_acs_override=downstream,multifunction initrd=/bzroot,/bzroot-gui label Unraid OS Safe Mode (no plugins, no GUI) kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot unraidsafemode label Unraid OS GUI Safe Mode (no plugins) kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot,/bzroot-gui unraidsafemode label Memtest86+ kernel /memtest so, as you can see, I added; isolcpus=2,8,4,10 nohz_full=2,8,4,10 rcu_nocbs=2,8,4,10 in order to have VMs use two hyperthreaded pairs, 2,8 and 4,10 (of the 11 cores total in the Xeon used by me) First booting after I'd set this showed me a nice GUI dialog I didn't know existed in unRAID, warning me some docker was pinned on one of the cores that was in use by a VM. Quote Link to comment
jbartlett Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 (edited) I did some tests on my Threadripper 2990WX 32 core chip with the different topology settings and did 10 passes with PerformanceTest 9.0 and averaged the results. OS was Windows 10. <topology sockets='1' cores='32' threads='1'/> The default setting with the cores pinned to span two full numa nodes gave me an average score of 17910.3 <topology sockets='1' cores='16' threads='2'/> Setting it to match the 16 core HT scored 17867.8, 0.24% slower <topology sockets='2' cores='8' threads='2'/> Making it match the numa node with 8 HT cores scored 17955.5, 0.25% faster Edited September 14, 2019 by jbartlett Quote Link to comment
jbartlett Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 Adding nohz_full & rcu_nocbs yielded no difference within a margin of error with a 0.23% decrease over the 2/8/2 topology settings. Quote Link to comment
jbartlett Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 Redid the 2 numa node test after properly configuring the XML so Windows 10 detected two numa nodes. Performance was the same <cpu mode='host-passthrough' check='none'> <topology sockets='2' cores='8' threads='2'/> <numa> <cell id='0' cpus='0-7' memory='4194304' unit='KiB'/> <cell id='1' cpus='8-15' memory='4194304' unit='KiB'/> </numa> </cpu> Quote Link to comment
frodr Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 A small info from my side. After de-pinning binhex-Plex docker, transcoding works better. Now running 5 x 4K streams transcoded to 1080P/12Mbps incl. texting at the same time works fine. Cheers, Supermicro X11DAI-N, version 1.02 | AMI 3.1 | dual Xeon Silver 4116 | 64 MB RAM | 4 x WD SSD in RAID 10 Cache l Unraid 6.72 l Quadro RTX4000 for Plex docker l GTX 1070 for MacOS kvm Quote Link to comment
Julius Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 On 9/13/2019 at 7:22 PM, fluisterben said: Just wanted to add how I expanded on this a little; Here's my /boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg default menu.c32 menu title Lime Technology, Inc. prompt 0 timeout 30 label Unraid OS menu default kernel /bzimage append tpcie_acs_override=downstream,multifunction isolcpus=2,8,4,10 nohz_full=2,8,4,10 rcu_nocbs=2,8,4,10 initrd=/bzroot label Unraid OS GUI Mode kernel /bzimage append pcie_acs_override=downstream,multifunction initrd=/bzroot,/bzroot-gui label Unraid OS Safe Mode (no plugins, no GUI) kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot unraidsafemode label Unraid OS GUI Safe Mode (no plugins) kernel /bzimage append initrd=/bzroot,/bzroot-gui unraidsafemode label Memtest86+ kernel /memtest so, as you can see, I added; isolcpus=2,8,4,10 nohz_full=2,8,4,10 rcu_nocbs=2,8,4,10 in order to have VMs use two hyperthreaded pairs, 2,8 and 4,10 (of the 11 cores total in the Xeon used by me) Assuming you use that Xeon from your signature (which is the exact same one I have in my unraid server, E2136), did you measure a change in some way, and if so, which/what/how? I copied these settings for my syslinux as well, and at least the VM performance seems snappier but that could be placebo.. Quote Link to comment
fluisterben Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 On 9/22/2019 at 2:58 PM, Julius said: Assuming you use that Xeon from your signature (which is the exact same one I have in my unraid server, E2136), did you measure a change in some way, and if so, which/what/how? I copied these settings for my syslinux as well, and at least the VM performance seems snappier but that could be placebo.. Thus far no issues or errors, everything in the green and VMs are very responsive. Did not have proper performance tests beforehand, but VMs definitely slower and lagging before I pinned the cores, which is all gone now. 1 Quote Link to comment
Nephilgrim Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 Im on mobile, but first thing I noticed is that you set the emulatorpin to a core/thread from node 0. Try using 11cores on your vm from the node1 instead of 12 and change the emulatorpin to that free core/thread. Probably that wil get rid of your latency issue since a core in node 0 is taking control of your vm in node1. Quote Link to comment
darthcircuit Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Nephilgrim said: Im on mobile, but first thing I noticed is that you set the emulatorpin to a core/thread from node 0. Try using 11cores on your vm from the node1 instead of 12 and change the emulatorpin to that free core/thread. Probably that wil get rid of your latency issue since a core in node 0 is taking control of your vm in node1. Thanks! I'll give that a try I deleted my post here the same time you hit submit so i could create my own thread. dunno if that was the right choice or not. didn't want to double post I'll let you know if that helped or not tho. Thanks! EDIT: I've updated the post I made HERE I think that helped a lot along with a couple other things, but am still getting some crazy latency. Thanks for the suggestion do you have any more ideas? Edited October 8, 2019 by darthcircuit Update so i don't double post Quote Link to comment
luca2 Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 Hi, I just bought a ryzen 3600. I am running a test server (new build with latest rc 4.8.6). According to amd this chip has only 1 Core chiplet with a 4 core+4core CCX design (some cores deactivated). I checked yesterday at how unraid shows them (attached pic). There are 6 pairs. I read about improving performance of Threadrippers with more cores, but want to ask how would be the optimal pinning for this cpu since I am not sure how to interpret how are the cores shown in Unraid. Maybe some can point me out in the right direction. Rgds Quote Link to comment
bastl Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 @luca2 The issue the Threadripper chips had is that they used 2 dies or 4 where the ressources (RAM, PCI lanes etc) are shared between them. On 1st gen you ended up with a higher latency which could cause some small performance decrease with mixing cores from 2 dies. With Ryzen 2nd gen this shouldn't be that big of an issue anymore and with 3rd gen the latency is even further reduced. In your case I guess cores 0/1/2 and it's HT are on the same chiplet and the rest on the second. You can kinda test it. Setup a VM with lets say cores 1/7 and 2/8 and do some memory benchmarks and do the same benchmarks after changing the cores to 1/7 and 3/9. You will maybe see some slightly higher latencies for RAM. But in general you won't notice it in games anyways. Always keep in mind to not to use the core 0 and it's HT because this will always used by unraid itself for doin stuff in the backround. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.