Hello All Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us use XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside full virtualization. The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get any way out to solve this issue. Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Arpan Jindal <jindalarpan@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello All > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us use XEN > for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside full > virtualization. > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday.one might ask why you would want to stick with full virtualization when you know you''ll be needing lots of IO, instead of simply using PV.> May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get any > way out to solve this issue.I wonder if you already use PV drivers http://pastebin.com/fb6fe631 ... or even try to convert it to PV guests http://pastebin.com/f6a5022bf ... or perhaps using a more up-to-date OS version can help (were you still using Centos 5.2? 5.4 has been available for a long time).> Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation.Good luck. If you find other virtualization products that suits your need better, you can post the results to help others with similar requirements as yours. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Monday 24 May 2010 10:50:31 Arpan Jindal wrote:> Hello All > > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us use > XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside full > virtualization. > > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. > > May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get any > way out to solve this issue. > > Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. >Arpan, do you happen to have this problem with Windows guests? I seem to get the impression that Xen (3.x) with Windows is not the best of choices as far as performance is concerned. Am I wrong? Novell does offer a (paied) driver pack to boost performance, maybe that''s a decent "plan B". Rgds, Bart _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
well i was using RHEL 5.4 as base machine(dom0) and RHEL 5.2 as guest machine (domU) On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@telenet.be>wrote:> On Monday 24 May 2010 10:50:31 Arpan Jindal wrote: > > Hello All > > > > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us use > > XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside full > > virtualization. > > > > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. > > > > May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get any > > way out to solve this issue. > > > > Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. > > > > Arpan, > > do you happen to have this problem with Windows guests? > I seem to get the impression that Xen (3.x) with Windows is not the best of > choices as far as performance is concerned. Am I wrong? Novell does offer a > (paied) driver pack to boost performance, maybe that''s a decent "plan B". > > Rgds, > > Bart >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Monday 24 May 2010 11:47:33 Arpan Jindal wrote:> well i was using RHEL 5.4 as base machine(dom0) and RHEL 5.2 as guest > machine (domU) > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Bart Coninckx<bart.coninckx@telenet.be>wrote:> > On Monday 24 May 2010 10:50:31 Arpan Jindal wrote: > > > Hello All > > > > > > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us > > > use XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside > > > full virtualization. > > > > > > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. > > > > > > May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get > > > any way out to solve this issue. > > > > > > Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. > > > > Arpan, > > > > do you happen to have this problem with Windows guests? > > I seem to get the impression that Xen (3.x) with Windows is not the best > > of choices as far as performance is concerned. Am I wrong? Novell does > > offer a (paied) driver pack to boost performance, maybe that''s a decent > > "plan B". > > > > Rgds, > > > > Bart >Any particular reason not use para-virt. ? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
as said i the vm''s will be doing lot of IO operations, so as per my understanding full virtualization is recommended to get near native performance On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@telenet.be>wrote:> On Monday 24 May 2010 11:47:33 Arpan Jindal wrote: > > well i was using RHEL 5.4 as base machine(dom0) and RHEL 5.2 as guest > > machine (domU) > > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Bart Coninckx > <bart.coninckx@telenet.be>wrote: > > > On Monday 24 May 2010 10:50:31 Arpan Jindal wrote: > > > > Hello All > > > > > > > > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us > > > > use XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance > inside > > > > full virtualization. > > > > > > > > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. > > > > > > > > May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get > > > > any way out to solve this issue. > > > > > > > > Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. > > > > > > Arpan, > > > > > > do you happen to have this problem with Windows guests? > > > I seem to get the impression that Xen (3.x) with Windows is not the > best > > > of choices as far as performance is concerned. Am I wrong? Novell does > > > offer a (paied) driver pack to boost performance, maybe that''s a decent > > > "plan B". > > > > > > Rgds, > > > > > > Bart > > > > Any particular reason not use para-virt. ? >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 24/05/10 11:22, Arpan Jindal wrote:> as said i the vm''s will be doing lot of IO operations, so as per my > understanding full virtualization is recommended to get near native > performance > >Your understanding is exactly wrong :-) To get near native performance you need paravirtual (or at least paravirtual drivers). It''s quite possible that HVM will lose its overhead in future, but for now, PV will give you better performance. jch _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Monday 24 May 2010 12:38:21 John Haxby wrote:> On 24/05/10 11:22, Arpan Jindal wrote: > > as said i the vm''s will be doing lot of IO operations, so as per my > > understanding full virtualization is recommended to get near native > > performance > > Your understanding is exactly wrong :-) To get near native performance > you need paravirtual (or at least paravirtual drivers). It''s quite > possible that HVM will lose its overhead in future, but for now, PV will > give you better performance. > > jch > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >Mmm, thought I was missing something somewhere ... _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Is this an april fools joke? Where would anyone get that crazy idea? :) - chris On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Bart Coninckx <bart.coninckx@telenet.be> wrote:> On Monday 24 May 2010 12:38:21 John Haxby wrote: >> On 24/05/10 11:22, Arpan Jindal wrote: >> > as said i the vm''s will be doing lot of IO operations, so as per my >> > understanding full virtualization is recommended to get near native >> > performance >> >> Your understanding is exactly wrong :-) To get near native performance >> you need paravirtual (or at least paravirtual drivers). It''s quite >> possible that HVM will lose its overhead in future, but for now, PV will >> give you better performance. >> >> jch >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >> > > Mmm, thought I was missing something somewhere ... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:17:33PM +0530, Arpan Jindal wrote:> well i was using RHEL 5.4 as base machine(dom0) and RHEL 5.2 as guest > machine (domU) >And did you install Xen PV-on-HVM drivers? Without those the performance will be bad. RHEL5 has those drivers available. Also when you''re using a Linux guest why not install it as PV? Then you don''t need any additional drivers and the performance is good out-of-the-box? RHEL5 supports running (and installing) as a Xen PV guest. -- Pasi> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Bart Coninckx > <[1]bart.coninckx@telenet.be> wrote: > > On Monday 24 May 2010 10:50:31 Arpan Jindal wrote: > > Hello All > > > > Finally after struggling for more than 3 weeks i have decided not us > use > > XEN for virtualization. due to very very poor IO performance inside > full > > virtualization. > > > > The VM''s I was creating was intended for high volume of IO everyday. > > > > May be I was not able to configure it properly but i also did not get > any > > way out to solve this issue. > > > > Note - The above comment is general and is based on my observation. > > > > Arpan, > > do you happen to have this problem with Windows guests? > I seem to get the impression that Xen (3.x) with Windows is not the best > of > choices as far as performance is concerned. Am I wrong? Novell does > offer a > (paied) driver pack to boost performance, maybe that''s a decent "plan > B". > > Rgds, > Bart > > References > > Visible links > 1. mailto:bart.coninckx@telenet.be> _______________________________________________ > 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
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:53 AM, chris <tknchris@gmail.com> wrote:> Is this an april fools joke? Where would anyone get that crazy idea? :) > > - chris >This is actually a common misconception that I run into a lot. If you think about other situations though it sort of makes sense - something in hardware is usually faster than the same thing in software. Think 3D acceleration. However, in virtualization it''s very much the opposite. A paravirtualized OS is aware that it''s being virtualized making it much better at handling being virtualized. A full virtualized OS relies on hardware being smart enough to catch requests from the Virtual Machine and direct them to a different location. The virtual OS has no knowledge of being virtualized thus is not helping in any way. In some aspects full virt is catching up to paravirt but it seems that Xen when it moves to hybrid virtualization will use full virt in those cases where it may be faster and paravirt everywhere else. KVM without paravirtualized drivers has exactly the same problems as Xen without paravirtualized drivers. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users