thr3ads.net - Xen users - [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system? [Mar 2006]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Kent Watsen

2006-Mar-18 21:37 UTC

[Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my current
machines:

  OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
  OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap, ldap,
smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
  OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers without
any downtime)

  OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
  FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
  NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
  RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
  CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
  SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
  Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
  Windows (used as a build/test machine)
  MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)

Notes:

  The OpenBSD-based servers are RAID-ed
  There are actually more machines as I run multiple releases of
each build/test OS...

If it can''t be done on one machine, than would either of these
2-machine solutions work:

  Partition machines by server vs. build/test

    one machine has:  1-3 (all para-virtualized)

    other machine has:  4-12 (5/9 para-virtualized)

  Partition machines by para- vs. full-virtualization

    one machine has: 1-4 and 10-12 (all full-virtualized) [would
GSX be better?]

    other machine has: 5-9 (all para-virtualized)

What would you do?

Thanks!

Kent


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Randy Thelen

2006-Mar-19 06:08 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Kent Watsen wrote:
> What would you do?
I would work to accomplish all on one machine.  Yes, I believe both  
para and full virtualization can be present on the same machine.

I''m looking for the chipset that supports two core duo processors (a  
total of four CPU cores).  That''s the kind of horse power I want in  
my life.  ;-)

-- Randy

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mogens Valentin

2006-Mar-19 12:04 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Kent Watsen wrote:> 
> Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my current 
> machines:
> 
>    1. OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
>    2. OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap, ldap,
>       smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
>    3. OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers without
>       any downtime)
>    4. OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
>    5. FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
>    6. NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
>    7. RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
>    8. CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
>    9. SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
>   10. Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
>   11. Windows (used as a build/test machine)
>   12. MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)
Pretty interesting, as this is more or less the exact same situation 
we''re having at my job - building for multiple platforms.
We''re in the early planning stages on how to solve that scenario, and 
I''ve been sysadm for only 1½ month, so a Bit of time''s needed
;)
You say build platforms, but don''t mention testing.

Our software is OpenGL/3D dependant.
We have two scenarios: Building and testing.
It''s mostly for XP, RH, Suse and OSX, + other *nix''s to some
extend.
We may choose to crosscompile as much as possible from a couple of 
boxes, and use a virtualized setup for testing. At the moment, I can''t 
see Xen used for testing, due to inappropriate graphics in domU''s, so
we
may have to use vmware, though it''s not the fastest.

A few comments:

ad 12: I know OSX can install on a emulated X86, but I don''t have 
personal experiences. I would doubt it''s usefullness. At least
we''re not
going to drop our G5 for that :)

ad 11: I''d wait for AMD in june, but still, graphics in Xen?

ad 10: Don''t know the status of OpenSolaris on Xen. One domU instance 
should work, apart from that, dunno.

BSD''s: Same as ad 10. AFAIK, all should install in domU, but how well 
they run, dunno. Would like a refresh in this. Anyone?

Your listing seems to suggest you''re basically BSD based.
Planning to use one of the BSD''s for dom0?

If you consolidate /all/ your services on one box, you''ll create a 
single point of failure issue for yourself.
I would at least use one virtualized box for infrastructure and another 
for the building.

Having two identical all-in-on boxes with redundancy/failover might be 
another solution. Might even be used for parallelized builds...
And maybe keep a dedicated Mac.

I''m having a related situation at home. Having stopped freelancing and 
gotten a good job, I just wan''t a single box here.
Been looking a Shuttle''s lates announcement, an SFF box for AM2, taking
4GB DDR2, using nVidia 51-series chipset.

Might be an idea for us to keep in touch on this.
> Notes:
> 
>     * The OpenBSD-based servers are RAID-ed
>     * There are actually more machines as I run multiple releases of
>       each build/test OS...
> 
> 
> If it can''t be done on one machine, than would either of these
2-machine
> solutions work:
> 
>    1. Partition machines by server vs. build/test
>           * one machine has:  1-3 (all para-virtualized)
>           * other machine has:  4-12 (5/9 para-virtualized)
>    2. Partition machines by para- vs. full-virtualization
>           * one machine has: 1-4 and 10-12 (all full-virtualized) [would
>             GSX be better?]
>           * other machine has: 5-9 (all para-virtualized)
> 
> 
> What would you do?
> 
> Thanks!
> Kent
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Jayesh Salvi

2006-Mar-19 14:50 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

>   12. MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)Can MacOS X be forked as a domU in Xen? Has anyone tried that?

Jayesh

On 3/19/06, Mogens Valentin <mogensv@vip.cybercity.dk>
wrote:>
> Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> > Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my current
> > machines:
> >
> >    1. OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
> >    2. OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap,
ldap,
> >       smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
> >    3. OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers without
> >       any downtime)
> >    4. OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
> >    5. FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
> >    6. NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
> >    7. RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
> >    8. CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
> >    9. SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
> >   10. Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
> >   11. Windows (used as a build/test machine)
> >   12. MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)
>
> Pretty interesting, as this is more or less the exact same situation
> we''re having at my job - building for multiple platforms.
> We''re in the early planning stages on how to solve that scenario,
and
> I''ve been sysadm for only 1½ month, so a Bit of time''s
needed ;)
> You say build platforms, but don''t mention testing.
>
> Our software is OpenGL/3D dependant.
> We have two scenarios: Building and testing.
> It''s mostly for XP, RH, Suse and OSX, + other *nix''s to
some extend.
> We may choose to crosscompile as much as possible from a couple of
> boxes, and use a virtualized setup for testing. At the moment, I
can''t
> see Xen used for testing, due to inappropriate graphics in domU''s,
so we
> may have to use vmware, though it''s not the fastest.
>
> A few comments:
>
> ad 12: I know OSX can install on a emulated X86, but I don''t have
> personal experiences. I would doubt it''s usefullness. At least
we''re not
> going to drop our G5 for that :)
>
> ad 11: I''d wait for AMD in june, but still, graphics in Xen?
>
> ad 10: Don''t know the status of OpenSolaris on Xen. One domU
instance
> should work, apart from that, dunno.
>
> BSD''s: Same as ad 10. AFAIK, all should install in domU, but how
well
> they run, dunno. Would like a refresh in this. Anyone?
>
> Your listing seems to suggest you''re basically BSD based.
> Planning to use one of the BSD''s for dom0?
>
>
> If you consolidate /all/ your services on one box, you''ll create a
> single point of failure issue for yourself.
> I would at least use one virtualized box for infrastructure and another
> for the building.
>
> Having two identical all-in-on boxes with redundancy/failover might be
> another solution. Might even be used for parallelized builds...
> And maybe keep a dedicated Mac.
>
>
> I''m having a related situation at home. Having stopped freelancing
and
> gotten a good job, I just wan''t a single box here.
> Been looking a Shuttle''s lates announcement, an SFF box for AM2,
taking
> 4GB DDR2, using nVidia 51-series chipset.
>
>
> Might be an idea for us to keep in touch on this.
>
> > Notes:
> >
> >     * The OpenBSD-based servers are RAID-ed
> >     * There are actually more machines as I run multiple releases of
> >       each build/test OS...
> >
> >
> > If it can''t be done on one machine, than would either of
these 2-machine
> > solutions work:
> >
> >    1. Partition machines by server vs. build/test
> >           * one machine has:  1-3 (all para-virtualized)
> >           * other machine has:  4-12 (5/9 para-virtualized)
> >    2. Partition machines by para- vs. full-virtualization
> >           * one machine has: 1-4 and 10-12 (all full-virtualized)
[would
> >             GSX be better?]
> >           * other machine has: 5-9 (all para-virtualized)
> >
> >
> > What would you do?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Kent
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Mogens Valentin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>


--
Jayesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you can imagine is real


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Kent Watsen

2006-Mar-19 15:48 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Based on a few of the follow-ups, I wanted to add some detail:

  all the machines could be headless (only command-line access is
needed)
  we may need real machines for Windows and MacOS if their displays
can''t be turned off

  the software we are developing exposes a SOAP-based interface
that is tested via scripts
  each built/test-machine builds and tests the code many times a
day (we are doing continuous builds)
  in addition to the servers, developers have desktops machines
(that are samba/nfs mounted) for their graphical needs
  developers will SSH into to a build/test machine if their
component is failing on that OS

Thanks,

Kent

Kent Watsen wrote:

Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my current
machines:

    OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
    OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap,
ldap,
smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
    OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers without
any downtime)

    OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
    FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
    NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
    RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
    CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
    SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
    Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
    Windows (used as a build/test machine)
    MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)

Notes:

    The OpenBSD-based servers are RAID-ed
    There are actually more machines as I run multiple releases of
each build/test OS...

If it can''t be done on one machine, than would either of these
2-machine solutions work:

    Partition machines by server vs. build/test

      one machine has:  1-3 (all para-virtualized)

      other machine has:  4-12 (5/9 para-virtualized)

    Partition machines by para- vs. full-virtualization

      one machine has: 1-4 and 10-12 (all full-virtualized) [would
GSX be better?]

      other machine has: 5-9 (all para-virtualized)

What would you do?

Thanks!

Kent

_______________________________________________
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

Kent Watsen

2006-Mar-21 16:58 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Bump - any advise?

PS: I will probably use SuSE with for Dom0 and use LAM-based guests

Thanks!

Kent

Kent Watsen wrote:

Based on a few of the follow-ups, I wanted to add some detail:

    all the machines could be headless (only command-line access is
needed)
    we may need real machines for Windows and MacOS if their
displays
can''t be turned off

    the software we are developing exposes a SOAP-based interface
that is tested via scripts
    each built/test-machine builds and tests the code many times a
day (we are doing continuous builds)
    in addition to the servers, developers have desktops machines
(that are samba/nfs mounted) for their graphical needs
    developers will SSH into to a build/test machine if their
component is failing on that OS

Thanks,

Kent

Kent Watsen wrote:

Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my current
machines:

      OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
      OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap,
ldap,
smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
      OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers
without
any downtime)

      OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
      FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
      NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
      RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
      CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
      SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
      Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
      Windows (used as a build/test machine)
      MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)

Notes:

      The OpenBSD-based servers are RAID-ed
      There are actually more machines as I run multiple releases
of
each build/test OS...

If it can''t be done on one machine, than would either of these
2-machine solutions work:

      Partition machines by server vs. build/test

        one machine has:  1-3 (all para-virtualized)

        other machine has:  4-12 (5/9 para-virtualized)

      Partition machines by para- vs. full-virtualization

        one machine has: 1-4 and 10-12 (all full-virtualized)
[would
GSX be better?]

        other machine has: 5-9 (all para-virtualized)

What would you do?

Thanks!

Kent

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

M.A. Williamson

2006-Mar-21 17:42 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

>    Based on a few of the follow-ups, I wanted to add some detail:
>      all the machines could be headless (only command-line access is
>needed)
>    we may need real machines for Windows and MacOS if their
>displays
>can''t be turned off
OK
>    Kent Watsen wrote:
>          Can I consolidate all my servers to one machine - here are my 
> current machines:
>          OpenBSD (used for external services: dns, http, smtp)
>      OpenBSD (used for internal services: dns, http, smtp, imap,
>ldap,
>smb, nfs, svn, bugzilla)
>      OpenSBD (used for upgrading either of the above servers
>without
>any downtime)
>            OpenBSD (used as a build/test machine)
These would need to run in an HVM (full virt) domain, since OpenBSD
doesn''t
have support for Xen. I''m not sure it''s as well tested as
Linux / Windows
under HVM, though,
>      FreeBSD (used as a build/test machine)
>      NetBSD (used as a build/test machine)
>      RedHat (used as a build/test machine)
>      CentOS (used as a build/test machine)
>      SuSE (used as a build/test machine)
>      Solaris (used as a build/test machine)
Linux 2.6-based distros can run in paravirt mode. Support for FreeBSD, 
NetBSD and Solaris in paravirt mode is on the way (NetBSD is being updated 
for Xen3, FreeBSD 7 development branch works, Solaris works with partial 
functionality).
>      Windows (used as a build/test machine)
Should run in an HVM partition.
>      MacOS X (used as a build/test machine)
Bzzzt. Due to the restrictions Apple have put in place, it''s a little 
doubtful whether you''ll be able to run OS X under Xen - even on Apple 
hardware - at the moment.

Some notes: Full virt needs hardware support (a VMX or SVM machine). This 
support is still being optimised (particularly in terms of getting good IO 
performance) and robustified. You may want to consider this wrt running 
your services in HVM - certainly you''ll want to trial it for a bit to
see
how well it works for you. You could alternatively (e.g. if you don''t
like
the HVM mode of Xen, or you don''t want to buy new hardware) run the 
unmodified OSes on a separate machine in something like VMware server (the 
forthcoming Free As In Beer version of GSX).

Provided your hardware supports it, paravirtualisation and full 
virtualisation work fine together on the same hypervisor. Note also that 
you can only run 64-bit paravirt guests on a 64-bit Xen, but that you can 
run 64-bit, 32-bit and 32-bit PAE guests in HVM partitions on a 64-bit Xen 
(if the hardware supports it!).

Hope that answers your questions.

Cheers,
Mark

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Kent Watsen

2006-Mar-22 06:03 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Mark wrote:> Provided your hardware supports it, paravirtualisation and full 
> virtualisation work fine together on the same hypervisor. Note also 
> that you can only run 64-bit paravirt guests on a 64-bit Xen, but that 
> you can run 64-bit, 32-bit and 32-bit PAE guests in HVM partitions on 
> a 64-bit Xen (if the hardware supports it!).Splendid!  I do plan to have hardware supported virtualization running a 
64-bit Dom0 - does that mean that para-virtualization will only work 
with 64-bit xen-aware guests or can I para-virtualize the 32-bit 
xen-aware guests as well? 

Thanks!
Kent


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mark Williamson

2006-Mar-22 09:17 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

> Splendid!  I do plan to have hardware supported virtualization running a
> 64-bit Dom0 - does that mean that para-virtualization will only work
> with 64-bit xen-aware guests or can I para-virtualize the 32-bit
> xen-aware guests as well?
Just 64-on-64 for now - for paravirt domains, the guest interface must match 
the hypervisor.  A compatability layer *may* appear at some point, but
it''s
not there yet.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mark Williamson

2006-Mar-22 12:27 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

> Mark wrote:
> > These would need to run in an HVM (full virt) domain, since OpenBSD
> > doesn''t have support for Xen. I''m not sure
it''s as well tested as
> > Linux / Windows under HVM, though,
>
> Yikes! Do the fully-virtualized OSs need to be "well tested" - I
thought
> the idea was that the OS would just work...or do you mean that the OS
> may not recognize some of the devices being provided by the virtual
> machine?
Well... good question.  The idea is indeed that the OS will Just Work.  But 
there''s always the possibility that a new OS will exercise some unusual
/
undocumented feature of the hardware (or just something that hasn''t
been
implemented because nobody else uses it) in which case it might break the 
emulation.  I''d say OpenBSD has a reasonably good chance of working,
and it''s
quite possible somebody out there tests it - but the main regression tests 
that are reported on the xen-devel list are for Windows XP and Linux 2.6.

Also, bear in mind that the HVM feature is much newer than other parts of Xen 
and has seen less real-world use due to the requirement for special hardware.  
It''s being continually regression tested and developed - you might like
to
check out the xen-devel archives for the regular test results, etc.
> > Just 64-on-64 for now - for paravirt domains, the guest interface must
> > match
> > the hypervisor. A compatability layer *may* appear at some point, but
> > it''s
> > not there yet.
>
> I know that there are many optimizations yet to be made, but given
> current implementations, is there any performance comparisons between
> running a 32-bit xen-aware OS para-virtualized versus full-virtualized?
> For instance, its been said that a para-virtualized guest OS may be 3%
> slower than normal - how much slower would the same guest be if running
> fully-virtualized?
I''m not sure there are numbers for full virtualisation yet.

Performance for CPU/memory-intensive stuff should at least be fair-to-good 
(but I don''t know exactly how good).  Performance for IO is likely to
be
somewhat lower due to the limitations of the current device model - there are 
plans to fix this with a new device emulation model and (at some point) with 
Xen-aware drivers.

Nb. full virt domains can''t be live migrated or suspended just yet. 
This will
also come with the new device model.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Kent Watsen

2006-Mar-22 16:33 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Mark wrote:> These would need to run in an HVM (full virt) domain, since OpenBSD 
> doesn''t have support for Xen. I''m not sure it''s
as well tested as
> Linux / Windows under HVM, though,
Yikes! Do the fully-virtualized OSs need to be "well tested" - I
thought
the idea was that the OS would just work...or do you mean that the OS 
may not recognize some of the devices being provided by the virtual machine?
> Just 64-on-64 for now - for paravirt domains, the guest interface must 
> match
> the hypervisor. A compatability layer *may* appear at some point, but 
> it''s
> not there yet.
I know that there are many optimizations yet to be made, but given 
current implementations, is there any performance comparisons between 
running a 32-bit xen-aware OS para-virtualized versus full-virtualized?  
For instance, its been said that a para-virtualized guest OS may be 3% 
slower than normal - how much slower would the same guest be if running 
fully-virtualized?


Thanks!
Kent

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Xen users - Mar 2006 - para- and full-virtualization on same system?

[Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?

Re: [Xen-users] para- and full-virtualization on same system?