thr3ads.net - Xen users - [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU [May 2009]

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

Robinson, Eric

2009-May-06 20:50 UTC

[Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have average
disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID 1 server. The
third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I run perfmon on it,
average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the heck accounts for the
difference? That number has to be spurious. There''s no way the disk
queue could really be that high.

--
Eric Robinson
Director of Information Technology
Physician Select Management, LLC
775.885.2211 x 111



Disclaimer - May 6, 2009 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for xen-users@lists.xensource.com. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and might not
represent those of Physician Select Management and Physician''s Managed
Care. Warning: Although Physician Select Management and Physician''s
Managed Care have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present
in this email, the companies cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
arising from the use of this email or attachments.
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/

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

Pasi Kärkkäinen

2009-May-07 09:56 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Robinson, Eric
wrote:> I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have average
> disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID 1 server. The
> third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I run perfmon on it,
> average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the heck accounts for the
> difference? That number has to be spurious. There''s no way the
disk
> queue could really be that high.
> 
Are you using Qemu emulated disk devices/drivers (default), or optimized
(paravirtualized) drivers?

-- Pasi

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

Paweł Kiełbicki

2009-May-07 09:59 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Hi. I''ve installed sles10 as a main system. then installed xen ,and two
virtual machines inside (Sles10 too) .Does anyne have any manuals how
administrate devices . I''m new in xen.


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

Robinson, Eric

2009-May-08 04:13 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

I''m using Qemu emulated drivers. I am under the impression that
paravirtualized drivers are not an option for Windows guests.

--
Eric Robinson

-----Original Message-----
From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi] 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:56 AM
To: Robinson, Eric
Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Robinson, Eric
wrote:> I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have 
> average disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID 1 
> server. The third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I run 
> perfmon on it, average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the heck 
> accounts for the difference? That number has to be spurious.
There''s
> no way the disk queue could really be that high.
> 
Are you using Qemu emulated disk devices/drivers (default), or optimized
(paravirtualized) drivers?

-- Pasi

Disclaimer - May 7, 2009 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for Pasi Kärkkäinen,xen-users@lists.xensource.com. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this
email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and might not represent those of Physician Select Management and
Physician''s Managed Care. Warning: Although Physician Select Management
and Physician''s Managed Care have taken reasonable precautions to
ensure no viruses are present in this email, the companies cannot accept
responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or
attachments.
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/

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

Pasi Kärkkäinen

2009-May-08 07:17 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:13:42PM -0700, Robinson, Eric
wrote:>  
> I''m using Qemu emulated drivers. I am under the impression that
paravirtualized drivers are not an option for Windows guests.
> 
You should try Windows Xen GPLPV drivers. They''ll have a lot better
performance than the
Qemu emulated devices.

And please don''t top-post..

-- Pasi
> --
> Eric Robinson
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:56 AM
> To: Robinson, Eric
> Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU
> 
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> > I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have 
> > average disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID 1 
> > server. The third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I run 
> > perfmon on it, average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the heck 
> > accounts for the difference? That number has to be spurious.
There''s
> > no way the disk queue could really be that high.
> > 
> 
> Are you using Qemu emulated disk devices/drivers (default), or optimized
> (paravirtualized) drivers?
> 
> -- Pasi
> 
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Robinson, Eric

2009-May-09 02:35 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Thanks, Pasi. I''ll give it a try. 

As far as top-posting goes, I''ve been on both sides of that debate
since before the phrase "surf the internet" was coined. I''m
too tired to worry about it any more. :-)

--
Eric Robinson

-----Original Message-----
From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi] 
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:18 AM
To: Robinson, Eric
Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:13:42PM -0700, Robinson, Eric
wrote:>  
> I''m using Qemu emulated drivers. I am under the impression that
paravirtualized drivers are not an option for Windows guests.
> 
You should try Windows Xen GPLPV drivers. They''ll have a lot better
performance than the Qemu emulated devices.

And please don''t top-post..

-- Pasi
> --
> Eric Robinson
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:56 AM
> To: Robinson, Eric
> Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 
> DomU
> 
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> > I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have 
> > average disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID 1 
> > server. The third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I run 
> > perfmon on it, average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the heck 
> > accounts for the difference? That number has to be spurious.
There''s
> > no way the disk queue could really be that high.
> > 
> 
> Are you using Qemu emulated disk devices/drivers (default), or 
> optimized
> (paravirtualized) drivers?
> 
> -- Pasi
> 

Disclaimer - May 8, 2009 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for Pasi Kärkkäinen,xen-users@lists.xensource.com. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this
email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and might not represent those of Physician Select Management and
Physician''s Managed Care. Warning: Although Physician Select Management
and Physician''s Managed Care have taken reasonable precautions to
ensure no viruses are present in this email, the companies cannot accept
responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or
attachments.
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/

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

Pasi Kärkkäinen

2009-May-09 17:51 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:35:38PM -0700, Robinson, Eric
wrote:> Thanks, Pasi. I''ll give it a try. 
> 
Yep. If you have any issues, you should post here.. James Harper (the author
of the GPLPV drivers), and many users of the drivers have been pretty responsive
here.
> As far as top-posting goes, I''ve been on both sides of that debate
since before
> the phrase "surf the internet" was coined. I''m too tired
to worry about it any more. :-)
>
Hehe. :)

-- Pasi
 > --
> Eric Robinson
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi] 
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:18 AM
> To: Robinson, Eric
> Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU
> 
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:13:42PM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> >  
> > I''m using Qemu emulated drivers. I am under the impression
that paravirtualized drivers are not an option for Windows guests.
> > 
> 
> You should try Windows Xen GPLPV drivers. They''ll have a lot
better performance than the Qemu emulated devices.
> 
> And please don''t top-post..
> 
> -- Pasi
> 
> > --
> > Eric Robinson
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pasik@iki.fi]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:56 AM
> > To: Robinson, Eric
> > Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 
> > DomU
> > 
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> > > I have 3 Windows terminal servers. The two physical servers have 
> > > average disk queue lengths around 1-2, which is normal for a RAID
1
> > > server. The third Windows terminal server is a Xen DomU. When I
run
> > > perfmon on it, average disk queue lengths are 20,000+. What the
heck
> > > accounts for the difference? That number has to be spurious.
There''s
> > > no way the disk queue could really be that high.
> > > 
> > 
> > Are you using Qemu emulated disk devices/drivers (default), or 
> > optimized
> > (paravirtualized) drivers?
> > 
> > -- Pasi
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Turinglifer

2009-May-12 02:48 UTC

head link

[Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

Hi,Sir

I encounter a Problems like this 

"when I run

# xm create gerd.cfg -c
Using config file "/etc/xen/gerd.cfg".
Error: Device 0 (vif) could not be connected. Backend device not found.
"Have you Solved it?

Can you give me a solution?

Thank you very much!





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

Fajar A. Nugraha

2009-May-12 05:16 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Turinglifer
<Turinglifer@huaweisymantec.com> wrote:> # xm create gerd.cfg -c
> Using config file "/etc/xen/gerd.cfg".
> Error: Device 0 (vif) could not be connected. Backend device not found.
> "
Start by reading this thread
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2009-05/msg00267.html

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

Ananth

2009-May-12 10:18 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

Hi,
Even I was facing the same error. Below is the config file which I am using
and I am able to create the guest domain without any errors.

kernel = "/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18.8-xenU"
name = ''fedora9''
vif = ['''']
dhcp = "192.168.31.30"
disk = [''file:/srv/xen/domU/fedora.fc9.img,sda1,w'']
root = "/dev/sda1 ro"
on_reboot = ''restart''
on_crash = ''restart''
vfb = [
''type=vnc,vncdisplay=1,vncpasswd=test,vnclisten=0.0.0.0'' ]
*extra = "TERM=xterm xencons=tty console=tty1"* (This might solve your
problem...hopefully)

Please try this and let me know if you are still facing the same problem.

Regards
Ananth

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@fajar.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Turinglifer
> <Turinglifer@huaweisymantec.com> wrote:
> > # xm create gerd.cfg -c
> > Using config file "/etc/xen/gerd.cfg".
> > Error: Device 0 (vif) could not be connected. Backend device not
found.
> > "
>
> Start by reading this thread
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2009-05/msg00267.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Turinglifer

2009-May-13 01:31 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you verymuch!

extra = "TERM=xterm xencons=tty console=tty1"    , which Solve this
Problem.

Thank you very much!


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ananth 
  To: Turinglifer@huaweisymantec.com 
  Cc: Xen User-List 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you
verymuch!



  Hi,
  Even I was facing the same error. Below is the config file which I am using
and I am able to create the guest domain without any errors.

  kernel = "/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18.8-xenU"
  name = ''fedora9''
  vif = ['''']
  dhcp = "192.168.31.30"
  disk = [''file:/srv/xen/domU/fedora.fc9.img,sda1,w'']
  root = "/dev/sda1 ro"
  on_reboot = ''restart''
  on_crash = ''restart''
  vfb = [
''type=vnc,vncdisplay=1,vncpasswd=test,vnclisten=0.0.0.0'' ]
  extra = "TERM=xterm xencons=tty console=tty1" (This might solve your
problem...hopefully)

  Please try this and let me know if you are still facing the same problem.

  Regards
  Ananth


  On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@fajar.net>
wrote:

    On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Turinglifer
    <Turinglifer@huaweisymantec.com> wrote:
    > # xm create gerd.cfg -c
    > Using config file "/etc/xen/gerd.cfg".
    > Error: Device 0 (vif) could not be connected. Backend device not found.
    > "


    Start by reading this thread
    http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2009-05/msg00267.html

    _______________________________________________
    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

Xen users - May 2009 - Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

[Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

RE: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

RE: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

Re: [Xen-users] Windows Performance Monitor on a Win2003R2 DomU

[Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you very much!

Re: [Xen-users] Device 0 (vif) could not be connected?Thank you verymuch!