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.