Hello.
I''ve been using Xen with some virtual machines for at least 2 years
now. When we all gone to VT-X, the xen world was introduced to windows
and we all enjoyed that... until we realized we needed drivers for it
to work =) We need to thank to James Harper for his efforts in making
the GPL PV drivers, so thanks!
Since the beginning of the GPLPV drivers development i''ve been
gathering feedback from all the users in the mailing list and some
months ago i''ve finally installed PV drivers 0.9.11-pre18. But the
performance was the same as without them, slow and with kernel times
almost at 100%.
I''ve tried solving it but never got anywhere, but the drivers remained
installed.
Today I installed 0.9.12-pre13 to test the performance - again the
performance is very similar with or without the pv drivers (screenshot
of device manager: http://uplink.lvengine.com/device.jpg )
I''ve benchmarked the network with iperf between Xen virtual machines
(pv machines, not hvm) and I get 2.5gbps ~ 3.0gbps, but with windows I
get around 40mb/s. My kernel times are almost 100% all the time and
disk performance is relatively slow (benchmarked with some windows
app, hd_speed, got me around 11mb/s - not bad, but the kernel times
are always up there... see http://uplink.lvengine.com/disk.jpg for a
screenshot).
I use Xen 3.2.1, on a gentoo linux, so xen is compiled from source
(for gentoo people, I have ioemu and pygrub use flags). I''m using
kernel 2.6.21 - I think this patchset was made by Red Hat, and
recently gentoo masked this version (or the version was already
masked), but i needed to use the .21 kernel because .18 doesn''t have
support for one of my nic''s and for the sata driver I think.
My windows-server config is based on the default python script :
# -*- mode: python; -*-
import os, re
arch = os.uname()[4]
if re.search(''64'', arch):
arch_libdir = ''lib64''
else:
arch_libdir = ''lib''
kernel = "/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader"
builder=''hvm''
memory = 1532
shadow_memory = 16
name = "windows"
vcpus=1
pae=0
acpi=1
apic=1
vif = [ ''bridge=eth0, mac=00:16:3e:00:00:10'' ]
disk = [
''phy:/dev/windows-server/winz,hda,w'',''phy:/dev/atf-vg/
phc,hdb,w'' ]
on_poweroff = ''destroy''
on_reboot = ''restart''
on_crash = ''restart''
device_model = ''/usr/'' + arch_libdir +
''/xen/bin/qemu-dm''
boot="dc"
sdl=0
vnc=1
vnclisten="0.0.0.0"
localtime=1
usb=1
usbdevice=''host:04b9:0300''
keymap=''pt''
I use LVM in all partitions.
I''ve tried using ioemu: in the "hda" device and it''s
the same. I''ve
removed the /gplpv entry from boot.ini as -pre13 doesn''t need it
anymore.
I must be configuring something wrong, maybe it''s the ACPI
Multiprocessor PC kernel? (I installed this system a long time ago,
before the PV drivers - changing the acpi setting now could be bad...
- but if it must, I can try changing it...)
Something odd is that cpu-z reports to me that the cpu has only
812mhz, but windows detects it''s a 2.24ghz processor (single
processor, i know the drivers have problems with smp and I don''t need
smp anyway)
I basically only run SQL server in this machine, and for a machine
with 1.5gb of memory it runs really slow :/
Can anyone help me ?
Thanks in advance,
Luís
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I have the same problem
My dom0 are either xen3.2 ( debian lenny stock packges ) or xen 3.3 ( debian
unstable )
my domU is a windows XP sp3
i tried to change nearly all the options provided by the xen network
adapter with no luck.
An iperf test between domU and dom0 or en external host never goes above
76Mbits and the domU cpu never goes below 110% during the test.
i also tried an ftp transfer with the same results
So far i have not been able to find a suitable solution.
Dil
"Luís Fernandes" <lfernandes@lojav.pt> a écrit dans le message
de
news:D2467430-CC1F-4B58-8C94-FD0D7A5B296D@lojav.pt...
Hello.
I''ve been using Xen with some virtual machines for at least 2 years
now. When we all gone to VT-X, the xen world was introduced to windows
and we all enjoyed that... until we realized we needed drivers for it
to work =) We need to thank to James Harper for his efforts in making
the GPL PV drivers, so thanks!
Since the beginning of the GPLPV drivers development i''ve been
gathering feedback from all the users in the mailing list and some
months ago i''ve finally installed PV drivers 0.9.11-pre18. But the
performance was the same as without them, slow and with kernel times
almost at 100%.
I''ve tried solving it but never got anywhere, but the drivers remained
installed.
Today I installed 0.9.12-pre13 to test the performance - again the
performance is very similar with or without the pv drivers (screenshot
of device manager: http://uplink.lvengine.com/device.jpg )
I''ve benchmarked the network with iperf between Xen virtual machines
(pv machines, not hvm) and I get 2.5gbps ~ 3.0gbps, but with windows I
get around 40mb/s. My kernel times are almost 100% all the time and
disk performance is relatively slow (benchmarked with some windows
app, hd_speed, got me around 11mb/s - not bad, but the kernel times
are always up there... see http://uplink.lvengine.com/disk.jpg for a
screenshot).
I use Xen 3.2.1, on a gentoo linux, so xen is compiled from source
(for gentoo people, I have ioemu and pygrub use flags). I''m using
kernel 2.6.21 - I think this patchset was made by Red Hat, and
recently gentoo masked this version (or the version was already
masked), but i needed to use the .21 kernel because .18 doesn''t have
support for one of my nic''s and for the sata driver I think.
My windows-server config is based on the default python script :
# -*- mode: python; -*-
import os, re
arch = os.uname()[4]
if re.search(''64'', arch):
arch_libdir = ''lib64''
else:
arch_libdir = ''lib''
kernel = "/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader"
builder=''hvm''
memory = 1532
shadow_memory = 16
name = "windows"
vcpus=1
pae=0
acpi=1
apic=1
vif = [ ''bridge=eth0, mac=00:16:3e:00:00:10'' ]
disk = [
''phy:/dev/windows-server/winz,hda,w'',''phy:/dev/atf-vg/
phc,hdb,w'' ]
on_poweroff = ''destroy''
on_reboot = ''restart''
on_crash = ''restart''
device_model = ''/usr/'' + arch_libdir +
''/xen/bin/qemu-dm''
boot="dc"
sdl=0
vnc=1
vnclisten="0.0.0.0"
localtime=1
usb=1
usbdevice=''host:04b9:0300''
keymap=''pt''
I use LVM in all partitions.
I''ve tried using ioemu: in the "hda" device and it''s
the same. I''ve
removed the /gplpv entry from boot.ini as -pre13 doesn''t need it
anymore.
I must be configuring something wrong, maybe it''s the ACPI
Multiprocessor PC kernel? (I installed this system a long time ago,
before the PV drivers - changing the acpi setting now could be bad...
- but if it must, I can try changing it...)
Something odd is that cpu-z reports to me that the cpu has only
812mhz, but windows detects it''s a 2.24ghz processor (single
processor, i know the drivers have problems with smp and I don''t need
smp anyway)
I basically only run SQL server in this machine, and for a machine
with 1.5gb of memory it runs really slow :/
Can anyone help me ?
Thanks in advance,
Luís
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > I have the same problem > > My dom0 are either xen3.2 ( debian lenny stock packges ) or xen 3.3 ( > debian > unstable ) > my domU is a windows XP sp3 > > i tried to change nearly all the options provided by the xen network > adapter with no luck. > > An iperf test between domU and dom0 or en external host never goesabove> 76Mbits and the domU cpu never goes below 110% during the test. > > i also tried an ftp transfer with the same results > > So far i have not been able to find a suitable solution. >I haven''t tested with XP in a little while. Make sure you _disable_ the firewall _service_ on the XP DomU (it is not sufficient to just disable the firewall in network config - the firewall service itself has to be disabled). That may just be an sp2 thing... I''m not sure if it is required with sp2 but it is something that you can verify easily. If you need the firewall service enabled, let me know and we''ll see if we can figure something else out. Do you have a copy of 2003 (must be sp2) you can test with to draw some comparisons? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > Hello. > I''ve been using Xen with some virtual machines for at least 2 years > now. When we all gone to VT-X, the xen world was introduced to windows > and we all enjoyed that... until we realized we needed drivers for it > to work =) We need to thank to James Harper for his efforts in making > the GPL PV drivers, so thanks!Thanks> > Today I installed 0.9.12-pre13 to test the performance - again the > performance is very similar with or without the pv drivers (screenshot > of device manager: http://uplink.lvengine.com/device.jpg ) > I''ve benchmarked the network with iperf between Xen virtual machines > (pv machines, not hvm) and I get 2.5gbps ~ 3.0gbps, but with windows I > get around 40mb/s. My kernel times are almost 100% all the time and > disk performance is relatively slow (benchmarked with some windows > app, hd_speed, got me around 11mb/s - not bad, but the kernel times > are always up there... see http://uplink.lvengine.com/disk.jpg for a > screenshot). > > I use Xen 3.2.1, on a gentoo linux, so xen is compiled from source > (for gentoo people, I have ioemu and pygrub use flags). I''m using > kernel 2.6.21 - I think this patchset was made by Red Hat, and > recently gentoo masked this version (or the version was already > masked), but i needed to use the .21 kernel because .18 doesn''t have > support for one of my nic''s and for the sata driver I think. ><snip>> > I''ve tried using ioemu: in the "hda" device and it''s the same. I''ve > removed the /gplpv entry from boot.ini as -pre13 doesn''t need it > anymore. > I must be configuring something wrong, maybe it''s the ACPI > Multiprocessor PC kernel? (I installed this system a long time ago, > before the PV drivers - changing the acpi setting now could be bad... > - but if it must, I can try changing it...) > Something odd is that cpu-z reports to me that the cpu has only > 812mhz, but windows detects it''s a 2.24ghz processor (single > processor, i know the drivers have problems with smp and I don''t need > smp anyway) > > I basically only run SQL server in this machine, and for a machine > with 1.5gb of memory it runs really slow :/ >What OS are you using? If it''s 2003 then make sure sp2 is installed. Switching to the ''Standard PC'' hal is easy enough. Switching back is a bit of a pain but you could just try it on an lvm snapshot. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Switching back from Standard PC to ACPI multiprocessing HAL is impossible. So it is to remove the GPLPV drivers. If you try to use flag /NOGPLPV, you get a blue screen. I had to reinstall windows to try the Novell drivers. Federico _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > Switching back from Standard PC to ACPI multiprocessing HAL is impossible.It certainly isn''t impossible. I did it a few days ago. It isn''t even that hard and is documented on the internet in various places. Basically, what I did was: . find the acpi hal (on CD or from another machine) and copy it to your ''Standard PC'' machine and call it c:\windows\system32\hal_xxx.dll . create a new boot.ini entry the same as the others but with /HAL=hal_xxx.dll added . reboot and select the new boot.ini entry - this selects the ACPI hal on a temporary basis. . update the hal driver to the ACPI hal using device manager . reboot . make sure you backup your system first :) James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I''ve also followed this method and had success. The only caveat is that when I booted with the /hal=halxxx.dll switch, it automatically installed the new HAL permanently - I didn''t have to update any drivers or anything like that. -Nick>>> "James Harper" <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> 2009/01/05 17:28 >>> > > Switching back from Standard PC to ACPI multiprocessing HAL is impossible.It certainly isn''t impossible. I did it a few days ago. It isn''t even that hard and is documented on the internet in various places. Basically, what I did was: . find the acpi hal (on CD or from another machine) and copy it to your ''Standard PC'' machine and call it c:\windows\system32\hal_xxx.dll . create a new boot.ini entry the same as the others but with /HAL=hal_xxx.dll added . reboot and select the new boot.ini entry - this selects the ACPI hal on a temporary basis. . update the hal driver to the ACPI hal using device manager . reboot . make sure you backup your system first :) James This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > I''ve also followed this method and had success. The only caveat isthat> when I booted with the /hal=halxxx.dll switch, it automaticallyinstalled> the new HAL permanently - I didn''t have to update any drivers oranything> like that. >Interesting. That''s probably the case then - I only updated the drivers just to be sure. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:15 AM, James Harper wrote:>> >> Hello. >> I''ve been using Xen with some virtual machines for at least 2 years >> now. When we all gone to VT-X, the xen world was introduced to >> windows >> and we all enjoyed that... until we realized we needed drivers for it >> to work =) We need to thank to James Harper for his efforts in making >> the GPL PV drivers, so thanks! > > Thanks > >> >> Today I installed 0.9.12-pre13 to test the performance - again the >> performance is very similar with or without the pv drivers >> (screenshot >> of device manager: http://uplink.lvengine.com/device.jpg ) >> I''ve benchmarked the network with iperf between Xen virtual machines >> (pv machines, not hvm) and I get 2.5gbps ~ 3.0gbps, but with >> windows I >> get around 40mb/s. My kernel times are almost 100% all the time and >> disk performance is relatively slow (benchmarked with some windows >> app, hd_speed, got me around 11mb/s - not bad, but the kernel times >> are always up there... see http://uplink.lvengine.com/disk.jpg for a >> screenshot). >> >> I use Xen 3.2.1, on a gentoo linux, so xen is compiled from source >> (for gentoo people, I have ioemu and pygrub use flags). I''m using >> kernel 2.6.21 - I think this patchset was made by Red Hat, and >> recently gentoo masked this version (or the version was already >> masked), but i needed to use the .21 kernel because .18 doesn''t have >> support for one of my nic''s and for the sata driver I think. >> > <snip> >> >> I''ve tried using ioemu: in the "hda" device and it''s the same. I''ve >> removed the /gplpv entry from boot.ini as -pre13 doesn''t need it >> anymore. >> I must be configuring something wrong, maybe it''s the ACPI >> Multiprocessor PC kernel? (I installed this system a long time ago, >> before the PV drivers - changing the acpi setting now could be bad... >> - but if it must, I can try changing it...) >> Something odd is that cpu-z reports to me that the cpu has only >> 812mhz, but windows detects it''s a 2.24ghz processor (single >> processor, i know the drivers have problems with smp and I don''t need >> smp anyway) >> >> I basically only run SQL server in this machine, and for a machine >> with 1.5gb of memory it runs really slow :/ >> > > What OS are you using? If it''s 2003 then make sure sp2 is installed.I''m using windows XP SP2 (sp2 on purpose). I have a Intel Core2 duo 2133mhz, 4mb cache with VT-X enabled. I have the firewall disabled, but you said in another mail to disable the service. I did and it boosted performance to 100mbits. Still slow though :/> > > Switching to the ''Standard PC'' hal is easy enough. Switching back is > a bit of a pain but you could just try it on an lvm snapshot. >should I be using the standard pc configuration or the acpi one?> James > >I have a spare 50gb partition on my lvm and sometime ago I made a copy of the windows partition. I have a windows system with a almost exact copy now. I''ll try installing the -pre13 drivers and switching HAL configurations just to test if it works better. I can only have windows XP because that''s the license that I have for that computer .... Luis _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > What OS are you using? If it''s 2003 then make sure sp2 is installed. > > I''m using windows XP SP2 (sp2 on purpose). > I have a Intel Core2 duo 2133mhz, 4mb cache with VT-X enabled. > > I have the firewall disabled, but you said in another mail to disable > the service. I did and it boosted performance to 100mbits. Still slow > though :/ > > > > > > > Switching to the ''Standard PC'' hal is easy enough. Switching back is > > a bit of a pain but you could just try it on an lvm snapshot. > > > > should I be using the standard pc configuration or the acpi one? >Try the Standard PC one and just give XP one CPU (I think you were already?). I hope to have a way shortly to fix ACPI problems under XP and 2003 (<sp2 - sp2 includes the fix already) but initially only for AMD processors. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
James Harper <james.harper <at> bendigoit.com.au> writes:> > I haven''t tested with XP in a little while. Make sure you _disable_ the > firewall _service_ on the XP DomU (it is not sufficient to just disable > the firewall in network config - the firewall service itself has to be > disabled). That may just be an sp2 thing... I''m not sure if it is > required with sp2 but it is something that you can verify easily. If you > need the firewall service enabled, let me know and we''ll see if we can > figure something else out. > > Do you have a copy of 2003 (must be sp2) you can test with to draw some > comparisons? > > James >Thank you, after disabling the firewall service i can get 250 Mb/s . the cpu on the domU is still high ( win xp reports 100% usage during the transfers ) i do not have a copy of win2003 so i can not test it. dil _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > > > > I haven''t tested with XP in a little while. Make sure you _disable_the> > firewall _service_ on the XP DomU (it is not sufficient to justdisable> > the firewall in network config - the firewall service itself has tobe> > disabled). That may just be an sp2 thing... I''m not sure if it is > > required with sp2 but it is something that you can verify easily. Ifyou> > need the firewall service enabled, let me know and we''ll see if wecan> > figure something else out. > > > > Do you have a copy of 2003 (must be sp2) you can test with to drawsome> > comparisons? > > > > James > > > > Thank you, after disabling the firewall service i can get 250 Mb/s . > > the cpu on the domU is still high > ( win xp reports 100% usage during the transfers ) > > i do not have a copy of win2003 so i can not test it. >Where are you testing from and too? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
James Harper <james.harper <at> bendigoit.com.au> writes:> > > > > > > > > I haven''t tested with XP in a little while. Make sure you _disable_ > the > > > firewall _service_ on the XP DomU (it is not sufficient to just > disable > > > the firewall in network config - the firewall service itself has to > be > > > disabled). That may just be an sp2 thing... I''m not sure if it is > > > required with sp2 but it is something that you can verify easily. If > you > > > need the firewall service enabled, let me know and we''ll see if we > can > > > figure something else out. > > > > > > Do you have a copy of 2003 (must be sp2) you can test with to draw > some > > > comparisons? > > > > > > James > > > > > > > Thank you, after disabling the firewall service i can get 250 Mb/s . > > > > the cpu on the domU is still high > > ( win xp reports 100% usage during the transfers ) > > > > i do not have a copy of win2003 so i can not test it. > > > > Where are you testing from and too? > > James >I run iperf as a client on the domu and as a server on the dom0. i also tried an ftp transfer ( ftp server on the dom0) ( lvm lv as volumes to get better disk performances ) the transfer rate was 140Mb/s max ( second run ) but the cpu was 100% loaded ( 60% for ftp.exe and 30 % system ) it seems that the high cpu load during network utilization is the main limiting factor. i disabled ms/qos with no luck _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > I run iperf as a client on the domu and as a server on the dom0. > > i also tried an ftp transfer ( ftp server on the dom0) ( lvm lv asvolumes> to get better disk performances ) > > the transfer rate was 140Mb/s max ( second run ) but the cpu was 100% > loaded (60% for ftp.exe and 30 % system ) > > it seems that the high cpu load during network utilization is the main > limiting factor. > > i disabled ms/qos with no luckI have been tinkering with patching the windows kernel to remove a particularly inefficient instruction, based on Travis Betak''s amdvopt driver (on sourceforge). That driver by itself should make XP fly on AMD processors. I am working on putting it into the xenpci driver, which I''ve done, and then making a similar optimization for Intel processors. A test I just did got the XP throughput going from 35 MBits/second to 350 MBits/second. Once I have sorted out a licensing issue with Travis and done some port testing I''ll release the updated GPLPV drivers. Windows 2003 sp2 included a similar fix built into the kernel, so you won''t see any performance increase there. Windows 2008 and Vista have the same thing already too. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:31 AM, James Harper wrote:>>> What OS are you using? If it''s 2003 then make sure sp2 is installed. >> >> I''m using windows XP SP2 (sp2 on purpose). >> I have a Intel Core2 duo 2133mhz, 4mb cache with VT-X enabled. >> >> I have the firewall disabled, but you said in another mail to disable >> the service. I did and it boosted performance to 100mbits. Still slow >> though :/ >> >>> >>> >>> Switching to the ''Standard PC'' hal is easy enough. Switching back is >>> a bit of a pain but you could just try it on an lvm snapshot. >>> >> >> should I be using the standard pc configuration or the acpi one? >> > > Try the Standard PC one and just give XP one CPU (I think you were > already?). I hope to have a way shortly to fix ACPI problems under > XP and 2003 (<sp2 - sp2 includes the fix already) but initially only > for AMD processors. > > James >I''ve been trying to switch to a standard pc hal, but windows just keeps getting destroyed. I''ve tryed the normal "update driver" process but it won''t accept the new driver (somehow?) and revert always back to acpi multiprocessor. So after completely destroying my windows setup, I copied windows again from the other partition and tried again. It didn''t work. So I thought I could install SP3 to see if windows xp worked better..... it was installing it for the whole night, 12 hours later I didn''t knew where it was and people at work needed to start to work so I had to stop the update. Now I had somesort of hybrid that crashes randomly... nevertheless I tried the /hal=xxx trick but the only thing it did was to delete hal.dll and complaint it doesn''t have it anymore. So I put it there again and it complaints again that it doesn''t exist.... In another post you said to turn off checksum and large send offloading .. I tried that but the performance lowered from 100mbits to 40 again. enabling those two upped the performance to 100mbits again. again, windows xp (sp2?) and intel core 2 duo with only 1 processor for the machine (but with the acpi multiprocessor kernel ....) and my kernel times are still almost at 100% On Jan 6, 2009, at 2:22 PM, dil wrote:> James Harper <james.harper <at> bendigoit.com.au> writes: > >> >>> >>>> >>>> I haven''t tested with XP in a little while. Make sure you _disable_ >> the >>>> firewall _service_ on the XP DomU (it is not sufficient to just >> disable >>>> the firewall in network config - the firewall service itself has to >> be >>>> disabled). That may just be an sp2 thing... I''m not sure if it is >>>> required with sp2 but it is something that you can verify easily. >>>> If >> you >>>> need the firewall service enabled, let me know and we''ll see if we >> can >>>> figure something else out. >>>> >>>> Do you have a copy of 2003 (must be sp2) you can test with to draw >> some >>>> comparisons? >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>> >>> Thank you, after disabling the firewall service i can get 250 Mb/s . >>> >>> the cpu on the domU is still high >>> ( win xp reports 100% usage during the transfers ) >>> >>> i do not have a copy of win2003 so i can not test it. >>> >> >> Where are you testing from and too? >> >> James >> > > I run iperf as a client on the domu and as a server on the dom0. > > i also tried an ftp transfer ( ftp server on the dom0) ( lvm lv as > volumes to > get better disk performances ) > > the transfer rate was 140Mb/s max ( second run ) but the cpu was > 100% loaded ( > 60% for ftp.exe and 30 % system ) > > > > it seems that the high cpu load during network utilization is the > main limiting > factor. > > i disabled ms/qos with no luck > > >I guess this is my problem as well, i''ll try copying windows again later tonight. Luís _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
James Harper <james.harper <at> bendigoit.com.au> writes:> > > > > I run iperf as a client on the domu and as a server on the dom0. > > > > i also tried an ftp transfer ( ftp server on the dom0) ( lvm lv as > volumes > > to get better disk performances ) > > > > the transfer rate was 140Mb/s max ( second run ) but the cpu was 100% > > loaded (60% for ftp.exe and 30 % system ) > > > > it seems that the high cpu load during network utilization is the main > > limiting factor. > > > > i disabled ms/qos with no luck > > I have been tinkering with patching the windows kernel to remove a > particularly inefficient instruction, based on Travis Betak''s amdvopt > driver (on sourceforge). > > That driver by itself should make XP fly on AMD processors. I am working > on putting it into the xenpci driver, which I''ve done, and then making a > similar optimization for Intel processors. > > A test I just did got the XP throughput going from 35 MBits/second to > 350 MBits/second. Once I have sorted out a licensing issue with Travis > and done some port testing I''ll release the updated GPLPV drivers. > > Windows 2003 sp2 included a similar fix built into the kernel, so you > won''t see any performance increase there. Windows 2008 and Vista have > the same thing already too. > > James >Thanks for the tip ... i installed the amdvopt driver and an iperf test gave a throughput of 440Mb/s with two vcpus. with one vcpu the results are lower. i also got good results for an ftp test between the doms. Cpu usage is still high but much lower than before. if i disable "checksum on rx packets" on the xen adapter iperf jumps to 725Mb/s _impressive_ !!!! i tried to add a second iperf thread ( -P2 option ) and got 436 Mb/s Thanks a lot for your help Mike _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Luís Fernandes wrote:> > On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:31 AM, James Harper wrote: > >>>> What OS are you using? If it''s 2003 then make sure sp2 is >>>> installed. >>> >>> I''m using windows XP SP2 (sp2 on purpose). >>> I have a Intel Core2 duo 2133mhz, 4mb cache with VT-X enabled. >>> >>> I have the firewall disabled, but you said in another mail to >>> disable >>> the service. I did and it boosted performance to 100mbits. Still >>> slow >>> though :/ >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Switching to the ''Standard PC'' hal is easy enough. Switching back >>>> is >>>> a bit of a pain but you could just try it on an lvm snapshot. >>>> >>> >>> should I be using the standard pc configuration or the acpi one? >>> >> >> Try the Standard PC one and just give XP one CPU (I think you were >> already?). I hope to have a way shortly to fix ACPI problems under >> XP and 2003 (<sp2 - sp2 includes the fix already) but initially >> only for AMD processors. >> >> James >> > > I''ve been trying to switch to a standard pc hal, but windows just > keeps getting destroyed. I''ve tryed the normal "update driver" > process but it won''t accept the new driver (somehow?) and revert > always back to acpi multiprocessor. > So after completely destroying my windows setup, I copied windows > again from the other partition and tried again. It didn''t work. So I > thought I could install SP3 to see if windows xp worked better..... > it was installing it for the whole night, 12 hours later I didn''t > knew where it was and people at work needed to start to work so I > had to stop the update. > Now I had somesort of hybrid that crashes randomly... nevertheless I > tried the /hal=xxx trick but the only thing it did was to delete > hal.dll and complaint it doesn''t have it anymore. So I put it there > again and it complaints again that it doesn''t exist.... > > In another post you said to turn off checksum and large send > offloading .. I tried that but the performance lowered from 100mbits > to 40 again. enabling those two upped the performance to 100mbits > again. > > again, windows xp (sp2?) and intel core 2 duo with only 1 processor > for the machine (but with the acpi multiprocessor kernel ....) and > my kernel times are still almost at 100% > >I''ve managed to put the drivers running smoothly in windows xp sp2. It was the ACPI Multiprocessor HAL that was causing the problem. However, to revert to it I had to do another step: 1- rebooted without GPL PV drivers (with the /nogplpv switch now) 2- after that, I selected update driver, choose, and selected Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC 3- it asked me to reboot, after reboot I entered without the GPL PV drivers 4- now it detects a new HAL and installs it, reboot again 5- I can now enter with the gpl pv drivers again the drivers were automatically recognized and installed (they were already installed), and now I get 1.05gbits of transfer rate with iperf to another virtual host. Hard drive performance goes to 50mb/s read speed (previous was 25mb/s) iperf to another host in the network gives me +/- 300mb/s ~ 350mb/s (in a linux machine it goes only to 500mbits/s, but that''s because we have rubbish switches) thanks for all your help! Luís _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
James Harper wrote:>> Switching back from Standard PC to ACPI multiprocessing HAL is impossible. >> > > It certainly isn''t impossible. I did it a few days ago. > > It isn''t even that hard and is documented on the internet in various places. Basically, what I did was: > > . find the acpi hal (on CD or from another machine) and copy it to your ''Standard PC'' machine and call it c:\windows\system32\hal_xxx.dll > . create a new boot.ini entry the same as the others but with /HAL=hal_xxx.dll added > . reboot and select the new boot.ini entry - this selects the ACPI hal on a temporary basis. > . update the hal driver to the ACPI hal using device manager > . reboot > . make sure you backup your system first :) > >Hi James, I''m having a problem selecting which HAL to use. Background : I installed W2k3-SP2 with 2 CPU, acpi=1,apic=0,pae=0, and install Xen PV Drivers 0.9.12-pre13. This worked fine. Then I clone this machine (using dd, and using ntfsresize/clone), both method worked fine. Then I tried changing the CPU to 3 (edit xen config, vcpus=3), this also worked fine. Now I want to change the config to single CPU only (vcpus=1). Windows crashed immediately during boot. I tried extracting halaacpi.dll (according to http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/309283, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/309283) to c:\windows\system32, booted with /hal=halaacpi.dll, but still windows crashed. Any ideas? Perhaps I''m using the wrong hal? Regards, Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users