Hi, It seems after upgrading to this release the cpu consumption has increased quite considerably. The server is an AMD 2.6 Dual Core. If you set the HVM config to use 1 vcpu instead of 2 the performance increases a lot which is quite strange. Anyone else had this problem? It was working fine on 3.0.4 Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:15:13 -0000 > From: "Ian Tobin" <itobin@tidyhosts.com> > Subject: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Hi, > It seems after upgrading to this release the cpu consumption has > increased quite considerably. > The server is an AMD 2.6 Dual Core. > If you set the HVM config to use 1 vcpu instead of 2 the performance > increases a lot which is quite strange. > Anyone else had this problem? It was working fine on 3.0.4 > Thanks > IanDo you mean that a Windows HVM consumes a lot of CPU according to xm top? If so you may have my problem - search for ACPI APIC and Windows HAL issues in relation to performance of Windows HVM. I haven''t use Xen earlier than 3.2 (SLES10 sp2) so I can''t comment on an increase or comparison to Xen 3.0.2. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Yes thats correct. The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the host itself is running slow. Ill have a look at your recommend searches Thanks for your help Ian -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Wilcock Sent: 09 December 2008 13:24 To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:15:13 -0000 > From: "Ian Tobin" <itobin@tidyhosts.com> > Subject: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Hi, > It seems after upgrading to this release the cpu consumption has > increased quite considerably. > The server is an AMD 2.6 Dual Core. > If you set the HVM config to use 1 vcpu instead of 2 the performance > increases a lot which is quite strange. > Anyone else had this problem? It was working fine on 3.0.4 > Thanks > IanDo you mean that a Windows HVM consumes a lot of CPU according to xm top? If so you may have my problem - search for ACPI APIC and Windows HAL issues in relation to performance of Windows HVM. I haven''t use Xen earlier than 3.2 (SLES10 sp2) so I can''t comment on an increase or comparison to Xen 3.0.2. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> Yes thats correct. > The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the host > itself is running slow. > Ill have a look at your recommend searches > Thanks for your help > Ian >Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m starting with this list: 1. AMD CPU 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. 3. Xen 3.2 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Ours is 1. AMD CPU 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 4. Xen 3.2 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Wilcock Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2> Yes thats correct. > The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and thehost> itself is running slow. > Ill have a look at your recommend searches > Thanks for your help > Ian >Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m starting with this list: 1. AMD CPU 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. 3. Xen 3.2 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
So far we have: 1. AMD CPU 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit 3. Xen 3.2 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. Anyone out there using the above combination without problems?> Ours is > > 1. AMD CPU > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > 4. Xen 3.2 > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > Wilcock > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > >> Yes thats correct. >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the > host >> itself is running slow. >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches >> Thanks for your help >> Ian >> > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m > starting with this list: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL._______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Here''s my working configuration: 1) Intel Xeon E5335 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance issues, plus several PV domUs. -Nick -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) So far we have: 1. AMD CPU 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit 3. Xen 3.2 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. Anyone out there using the above combination without problems?> Ours is > > 1. AMD CPU > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > 4. Xen 3.2 > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > Wilcock > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > >> Yes thats correct. >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the > host >> itself is running slow. >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches >> Thanks for your help >> Ian >> > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m > starting with this list: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL.This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote:> Here''s my working configuration: > 1) Intel Xeon E5335 > 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) > 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) > 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs > > I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance > issues, plus several PV domUs. >Hello. Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings. -- Pasi> -Nick > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> > To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) > > > So far we have: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. > > Anyone out there using the above combination without problems? > > > Ours is > > > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > > 4. Xen 3.2 > > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Wilcock > > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > > > >> Yes thats correct. > >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the > > host > >> itself is running slow. > >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches > >> Thanks for your help > >> Ian > >> > > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m > > starting with this list: > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > > 3. Xen 3.2 > > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
What Drivers are you using, the GLPV or the Novell drivers?? -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:54 AM To: Nick Couchman Cc: oliver@owch.ca; Xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote:> Here''s my working configuration: > 1) Intel Xeon E5335 > 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) > 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) > 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs > > I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance > issues, plus several PV domUs. >Hello. Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings. -- Pasi> -Nick > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> > To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) > > > So far we have: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. > > Anyone out there using the above combination without problems? > > > Ours is > > > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > > 4. Xen 3.2 > > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Wilcock > > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > > > >> Yes thats correct. > >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the > > host > >> itself is running slow. > >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches > >> Thanks for your help > >> Ian > >> > > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m > > starting with this list: > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > > 3. Xen 3.2 > > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I'm using James Harper's GPL PV drivers. The Novell drivers don't seem to work - I get BSODs with those. -Nick>>> "Venefax" <venefax@gmail.com> 2008/12/10 02:22 >>>What Drivers are you using, the GLPV or the Novell drivers?? -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:54 AM To: Nick Couchman Cc: oliver@owch.ca; Xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote:> Here's my working configuration: > 1) Intel Xeon E5335 > 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) > 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) > 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs > > I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance > issues, plus several PV domUs. >Hello. Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings. -- Pasi> -Nick > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> > To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) > > > So far we have: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. > > Anyone out there using the above combination without problems? > > > Ours is > > > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > > 4. Xen 3.2 > > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Wilcock > > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > > > >> Yes thats correct. > >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top andthe> > host > >> itself is running slow. > >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches > >> Thanks for your help > >> Ian > >> > > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are.I'm> > starting with this list: > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > > 3. Xen 3.2 > > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Here's an example - sanitized a little bit, but nothing important removed... ostype="windowsxp" name="MyXPVM" memory=384 maxmem=768 vcpus=1 uuid="316d4851-be44-6868-6871-2ef45a3439ba" on_crash="destroy" on_poweroff="destroy" on_reboot="restart" localtime=1 builder="hvm" extid=0 device_model="/usr/lib/xen/bin/qemu-dm" kernel="/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader" boot="c" disk=[ 'file:/var/lib/xem/MyXPVM/disk0,hda,w', ] vif=[ 'mac=00:11:22:33:44:55,bridge=xenbr108,model=rtl8139', ] vnc=1 vncunused=1 apic=1 acpi=1 pae=0 usb=1 usbdevice='tablet' serial="pty" -Nick -----Original Message----- From: Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@iki.fi> To: Nick Couchman <Nick.Couchman@seakr.com> Cc: oliver@owch.ca, Xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:53:45 +0200 On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote:> Here's my working configuration: > 1) Intel Xeon E5335 > 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) > 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) > 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs > > I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance > issues, plus several PV domUs. >Hello. Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings. -- Pasi> -Nick > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> > To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) > > > So far we have: > 1. AMD CPU > 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit > 3. Xen 3.2 > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. > > Anyone out there using the above combination without problems? > > > Ours is > > > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor > > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 > > 4. Xen 3.2 > > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver > > Wilcock > > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 > > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 > > > >> Yes thats correct. > >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the > > host > >> itself is running slow. > >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches > >> Thanks for your help > >> Ian > >> > > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. > > > > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I'm > > starting with this list: > > 1. AMD CPU > > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. > > 3. Xen 3.2 > > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. > > >This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I revisited this and found that a Windows Server 2003 R2 HVM is fine with ACPI and APIC. Perhaps it is Windows XP that triggers the problem. So far we have: 1. AMD CPU 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit 3. Xen 3.2 4. guest is 32 bit Windows XP Pro SP2 HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL.> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote: >> Here''s my working configuration: >> 1) Intel Xeon E5335 >> 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60) >> 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2) >> 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs >> >> I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance >> issues, plus several PV domUs. >> > > Hello. > > Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) > windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings. > > -- Pasi > > >> -Nick >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@owch.ca> >> To: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 >> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) >> >> >> So far we have: >> 1. AMD CPU >> 2. kernel 2.6.16? 32 or 64 bit >> 3. Xen 3.2 >> 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. >> >> Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM. >> >> Anyone out there using the above combination without problems? >> >> > Ours is >> > >> > 1. AMD CPU >> > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor >> > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0 >> > 4. Xen 3.2 >> > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com >> > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Oliver >> > Wilcock >> > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07 >> > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2 >> > >> >> Yes thats correct. >> >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the >> > host >> >> itself is running slow. >> >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches >> >> Thanks for your help >> >> Ian >> >> >> > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem. >> > >> > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are. I''m >> > starting with this list: >> > 1. AMD CPU >> > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0? SLES10 SP2, for me. >> > 3. Xen 3.2 >> > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL. >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> What Drivers are you using, the GLPV or the Novell drivers??I have used the GPLPV. The problem is evident with or without the /GPLPV boot.ini option and I''m pretty sure it is evident during a fresh installation. During boot from the install CD / DVD I watched two different behaviours with xm top. With Windows XP Pro while the boot loader does its thing, there is high CPU usage but only one CPU (ie. not more than 100% used). The installer then initializes the windows kernel and at this point the CPU usage jumps above 100% and typically stays there. With Windows Server 2003 R2 (32 bit) while the boot loader does its thing, there is high CPU usage but only one CPU (ie. not more than 100%). The installer then initializes the windows kernel and at this point the CPU usage drops and behaves in a rational manner. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users