Hi I''ve been running xen with linux guests for a while now and thought I''d try windows as I have a new server. All seemed to go fine except performance is *horrible* - I''m currently installing Win2003 SP2 and it''s been running over 12 hours (thank god for vnc) - each individual file is taking between 3 and 4 seconds each. Server is an intel E6600 with plenty of memory so should be pretty fast. I had a look around and it is apparently the performance of qemu-dm that''s critical. That''s currently pinned at 1% CPU usage and using 332MB of memory (pushing dom0 into swap as I only gave it 256MB) - is this normal? CPU load apart from that is: dom0 8.7% linux domu 0.3% windows domu 5.6% Load average of dom0 is 1.03.. but I can''t for the life of me see why as the cpu is nearly idle. So the CPU has buckets of spare capacity and xen isn''t using it. I expect I''ve configured something very wrong. Any ideas? Tony _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Tony Hoyle wrote:> Load average of dom0 is 1.03.. but I can''t for the life of me see why as > the cpu is nearly idle.Just just spent ages looking for this load and I''m damned if I can find it. Here''s everything I have.. any ideas? vmstat 1: procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 2 84 2856 40 90556 0 0 352 228 281 593 0 0 90 9 1 1 84 3128 40 90196 0 0 56 249 348 683 0 0 89 11 2 1 84 2588 40 90768 0 0 264 576 488 2746 0 0 73 27 0 0 84 3196 40 89888 0 0 300 923 641 1400 0 0 18 82 0 0 84 3084 40 90108 0 0 228 222 2534 3044 1 0 84 15 1 0 84 2908 40 90548 0 0 252 492 1166 1589 0 0 89 11 0 0 84 2760 40 90744 0 0 116 329 397 1285 0 0 97 3 0 1 84 2728 40 90704 0 0 180 126 2103 2403 0 0 85 15 1 0 84 2904 40 90576 0 0 276 452 1452 2482 1 3 60 36 0 1 84 2724 40 90776 0 0 332 379 407 2740 1 0 78 21 1 2 84 2704 40 90748 0 0 256 1223 430 2602 1 0 55 44 0 1 84 3092 40 90268 0 0 1424 138 1620 2727 1 0 52 47 free -m: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 256 253 2 0 0 88 -/+ buffers/cache: 164 91 Swap: 23673 0 23673 xm top: xentop - 00:48:23 Xen 3.1.0 3 domains: 1 running, 2 blocked, 0 paused, 0 crashed, 0 dying, 0 shutdown Mem: 4192764k total, 876024k used, 3316740k free CPUs: 2 @ 2400MHz NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k) MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR SSID Domain-0 -----r 1622 8.9 262184 6.3 no limit n/a 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kira --b--- 1003 3.9 270208 6.4 278528 6.6 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 sisko --b--- 281 0.0 261988 6.2 262144 6.3 2 1 19319 158369 2 0 134505 127433 0 Domain config: # # Kernel + memory size # kernel = ''/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader'' builder = ''hvm'' memory = 256 shadow_memory = 8 # # Disk device(s). # disk = [ ''file:/machines/kira-disk,hda,w'', ''phy:/dev/hda,hdc:cdrom,r'' ] # # Hostname # name = ''kira'' # # Networking # vif = [ ''mac=aa:00:84:fd:e7:0d'' ] # # Behaviour # on_poweroff = ''destroy'' on_reboot = ''restart'' on_crash = ''restart'' # New stuff device_model = ''/usr/lib/xen/bin/qemu-dm'' boot=''d'' sdl=1 vnc=0 localtime=1 usb=1 usbdevice=''tablet'' _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Tony Hoyle > Sent: 28 May 2007 22:42 > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: [Xen-users] hvm performance > > Hi > > I''ve been running xen with linux guests for a while now and > thought I''d > try windows as I have a new server. All seemed to go fine except > performance is *horrible* - I''m currently installing Win2003 SP2 and > it''s been running over 12 hours (thank god for vnc) - each individual > file is taking between 3 and 4 seconds each.I can install Vista in about 20-30 minutes. XP or 2K3 is roughly the same amount of time - not much different from the native install.> > Server is an intel E6600 with plenty of memory so should be > pretty fast. > > I had a look around and it is apparently the performance of qemu-dm > that''s critical. That''s currently pinned at 1% CPU usage and using > 332MB of memory (pushing dom0 into swap as I only gave it 256MB) - is > this normal? CPU load apart from that is:Doesn''t seem like the normal behaviour I see. I use 256MB in Dom0, but installing Windows works just fine in this setup. What version of Xen are you using? What is the host? -- Mats _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Petersson, Mats wrote:> Doesn''t seem like the normal behaviour I see. I use 256MB in Dom0, but > installing Windows works just fine in this setup. > > > What version of Xen are you using? What is the host?Intel Core Duo E6600, 4GB RAM, running debian etch and the 2.6.20-1-xen-amd64 kernel from sid and Xen 3.1 (from http://www.mussicorp.net/pacotes/dists/etch/xen-etch-31/). Tony _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Tony Hoyle > Sent: 29 May 2007 11:53 > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] hvm performance > > Petersson, Mats wrote: > > Doesn''t seem like the normal behaviour I see. I use 256MB > in Dom0, but > > installing Windows works just fine in this setup. > > > > > > What version of Xen are you using? What is the host? > > Intel Core Duo E6600, 4GB RAM, running debian etch and the > 2.6.20-1-xen-amd64 kernel from sid and Xen 3.1 (from > http://www.mussicorp.net/pacotes/dists/etch/xen-etch-31/).I see nothing wrong with that as such. Is there any chance you can check "strings /usr/lib64/xen/bin/qemu-dm|grep QEMU" - the first line should be the version number. Is that 0.8.2 or 0.9.0? The latter is apparently having problems in SOME distributions. -- Mats> > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Petersson, Mats wrote:> Is there any chance you can check "strings > /usr/lib64/xen/bin/qemu-dm|grep QEMU" - the first line should be the > version number. Is that 0.8.2 or 0.9.0? The latter is apparently having > problems in SOME distributions.QEMU PC emulator version 0.8.2, Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Fabrice Bellard Is it worth trying to get hold of a 0.9.0 version and testing that, or isn''t there much difference? Tony _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Tony Hoyle > Sent: 29 May 2007 13:07 > To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] hvm performance > > Petersson, Mats wrote: > > Is there any chance you can check "strings > > /usr/lib64/xen/bin/qemu-dm|grep QEMU" - the first line should be the > > version number. Is that 0.8.2 or 0.9.0? The latter is > apparently having > > problems in SOME distributions. > > QEMU PC emulator version 0.8.2, Copyright (c) 2003-2005 > Fabrice Bellard > > Is it worth trying to get hold of a 0.9.0 version and testing > that, or > isn''t there much difference?No, there shouldn''t be much of a difference in performance. The reason I asked was the other way around - if for some reason they''d decided to use 0.9.0, there''s a problem in some setups when the Python script creates the qemu-dm that some SIGNAL to indicate that the hard-disk IO is finished isn''t being forwarded to qemu-dm, which means that it only accepts one hard-disk request per time-out period - there is a patch to fix this, but it''s only a couple of days old. -- Mats> > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > 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