On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Paul Robert Marino <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Nico
> Depending on the role of the particular system and or which company I
> was working for at the time I've need one the other or both.
> In my current role in the broadcast industry precision with
> predictable latency is more important for most of my systems.
> That said when I worked in the financial industry it changed based on
> what part of the industy I was working for.

I... need to step out of some parts of this disussion, due to NDA's.

> Further more I dont know about that statement "Anyways, KVM will not
> handle latency any better than Vmware." the article you pointed out
> talks about VCPU's going in and out of halted states, which is normal

I'm afraid that wasn't me. I just expressed my hope that the original
poster was using real hardware, not virtualization, due to my poor
experience and the architectural constraints of virtualization.

> and completely expected in VMware because they always assume you are
> going to overbook your CPU cores. there is a slight difference when
> you talk about KVM in paravirtualized mode with overbooking disabled
> it directly maps the CPU cores the the VM so as long as you don't have
> power management enabled the CPU's are always operating at full speed
> further more you can directly map PCIe bus address to the VM
> (essentially assigning a card on your bus directly to the VM to be
> completely managed by its kernel) to reduce latency in other ways to
> hardware if you need too.

I'm not disagreeing. It's extra work, it's fragile in configuration,
and that sort of fine tuning is very, very easy to get wrong.