Hi, we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live migration of hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance is dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the performance is okay now. I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take them. Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
Keir Fraser
2012-Jul-13 08:05 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote:> Hi, > > we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live migration > of > hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance is > dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the > performance is okay now. > > I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The > backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take them.Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack from) a tools maintainer. -- Keir> Juergen
Juergen Gross
2012-Jul-13 09:26 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
Am 13.07.2012 10:05, schrieb Keir Fraser:> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live migration >> of >> hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance is >> dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the >> performance is okay now. >> >> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The >> backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take them. > > Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack > from) a tools maintainer.Okay, I''ll send the patches for 4.1 and 4.0 and George can Ack or Nack them. Thanks, Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
Andrew Cooper
2012-Jul-13 10:07 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 13/07/12 10:26, Juergen Gross wrote:> Am 13.07.2012 10:05, schrieb Keir Fraser: >> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live migration >>> of >>> hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance is >>> dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the >>> performance is okay now. >>> >>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The >>> backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take them. >> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >> from) a tools maintainer. > Okay, I''ll send the patches for 4.1 and 4.0 and George can Ack or Nack them. > > > Thanks, Juergen >For what it is worth, XenServer have had these patches (the pre-upstreamed versions) in all Xen-4.x releases we have done. We even had a customer support escalation and backported them to our last Xen-3.4 release. -- Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com
Keir Fraser
2012-Jul-19 14:37 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 13/07/2012 11:07, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:> On 13/07/12 10:26, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Am 13.07.2012 10:05, schrieb Keir Fraser: >>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live >>>> migration >>>> of >>>> hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance >>>> is >>>> dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the >>>> performance is okay now. >>>> >>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The >>>> backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take >>>> them. >>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >>> from) a tools maintainer. >> Okay, I''ll send the patches for 4.1 and 4.0 and George can Ack or Nack them.I haven''t seen anything from George or Ian. These are likely to not make it for the next 4.0/4.1 point releases. -- Keir>> Thanks, Juergen >> > > For what it is worth, XenServer have had these patches (the > pre-upstreamed versions) in all Xen-4.x releases we have done. We even > had a customer support escalation and backported them to our last > Xen-3.4 release.
Ian Jackson
2012-Jul-19 15:11 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"):> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and > > 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are > > willing to take them. > > Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack > from) a tools maintainer.Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered very carefully. Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. And the Xen 4.0 tree is in the deep freeze and I don''t think we should be backporting anything other than critical bugfixes for it. Ian.
Keir Fraser
2012-Jul-19 15:23 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 19/07/2012 16:11, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for > 4.0 and 4.1"): >> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>> willing to take them. >> >> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >> from) a tools maintainer. > > Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. > > These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are > fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything > that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released > version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered > very carefully.They have been in use in Citrix XenServer for a while. However, this is still late in stable point-release cycle to drop these in. It might make sense to have them in 4.2.0 for a while, and then reconsider for backport for 4.1.4 (I think you are probably right to nack for the 4.0 branch). -- Keir> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we > should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for > why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. > > And the Xen 4.0 tree is in the deep freeze and I don''t think we should > be backporting anything other than critical bugfixes for it. > > Ian.
Juergen Gross
2012-Jul-20 05:54 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson:> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>> willing to take them. >> >> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >> from) a tools maintainer. > > Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. > > These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are > fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything > that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released > version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered > very carefully. > > Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we > should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for > why this is important to retrofit to 4.1.Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for a system which is expected to be up 24/7. I assume there is a reason the patches are in XCP right now. :-) Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
Andrew Cooper
2012-Jul-20 09:26 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 20/07/12 06:54, Juergen Gross wrote:> Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson: >> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>>> willing to take them. >>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >>> from) a tools maintainer. >> Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. >> >> These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are >> fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything >> that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released >> version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered >> very carefully. >> >> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we >> should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for >> why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. > Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. > > A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for > a system which is expected to be up 24/7. > > I assume there is a reason the patches are in XCP right now. :-) > > > Juergen >XCP is basically XenServer minus the propriety stuff, so it uses ''our'' Xen amongst other things. -- Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com
George Dunlap
2012-Jul-20 19:36 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On 19/07/12 22:54, Juergen Gross wrote:> Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson: >> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>>> willing to take them. >>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack >>> from) a tools maintainer. >> Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. >> >> These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are >> fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything >> that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released >> version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered >> very carefully. >> >> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we >> should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for >> why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. > Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. > > A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for > a system which is expected to be up 24/7.Is there a reason you can''t just do as XenServer and XCP have done, and have them in a local patch queue? Obviously it''s better to keep a local patch queue as short as possible, but it doesn''t seem like you''re really going to be that crippled if we wait to check them in. -George
Juergen Gross
2012-Jul-23 05:01 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
Am 20.07.2012 21:36, schrieb George Dunlap:> On 19/07/12 22:54, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Am 19.07.2012 17:11, schrieb Ian Jackson: >>> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs >>> 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1"): >>>> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross"<juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and >>>>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are >>>>> willing to take them. >>>> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at >>>> least an Ack >>>> from) a tools maintainer. >>> Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. >>> >>> These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are >>> fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything >>> that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released >>> version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered >>> very carefully. >>> >>> Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we >>> should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for >>> why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. >> Live migration is a main high-availability feature of our next release. >> >> A performance degradation of 10% and more will not be easily accepted for >> a system which is expected to be up 24/7. > Is there a reason you can''t just do as XenServer and XCP have done, and > have them in a local patch queue?That''s plan C. :-) We are using SLES as base, so plan B is asking Suse...> Obviously it''s better to keep a local patch queue as short as possible, > but it doesn''t seem like you''re really going to be that crippled if we > wait to check them in.Correct. I had to try. :-) Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
Pasi Kärkkäinen
2012-Nov-05 12:34 UTC
Re: Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for 4.0 and 4.1
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:23:43PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 19/07/2012 16:11, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > > Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Backport requests of cs 23420..23423 for > > 4.0 and 4.1"): > >> On 13/07/2012 07:08, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>> I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and > >>> 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are > >>> willing to take them. > >> > >> Will need an Ack from George and then patches applied by (or at least an Ack > >> from) a tools maintainer. > > > > Thanks for replying Keir, but I''m rather queasy about this. > > > > These patches have not been in any released version of Xen and are > > fairly substantial. I would say that we should not backport anything > > that isn''t a critical bugfix which hasn''t been sitting in a released > > version of Xen for a while; and a new feature ought to be considered > > very carefully. > > They have been in use in Citrix XenServer for a while. However, this is > still late in stable point-release cycle to drop these in. It might make > sense to have them in 4.2.0 for a while, and then reconsider for backport > for 4.1.4 (I think you are probably right to nack for the 4.0 branch). >Hello, Should these patches now go in to 4.1.4-rc1 ? -- Pasi> -- Keir > > > Now maybe the unfortunately extended 4.2 release cycle may mean we > > should relax this rule but I''d prefer to see a clear justification for > > why this is important to retrofit to 4.1. > > > > And the Xen 4.0 tree is in the deep freeze and I don''t think we should > > be backporting anything other than critical bugfixes for it. > > > > Ian. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel