Hello James,
After successfully building the PV drivers, I installed them on a
XP32 HVM. Everything seems to work well except for the following which
I''m not sure is normal behaviour:
1. There is still a leftover "Xen pci device #0" without any
drivers. Instance ID is "XEN\PCI\4&32FE5319&0&00"
2. Although I see in device manager that the boot disk is now
"XEN PV DISK SCSI Disk Device", is it normal to not see any xen block
activity in "xl top"?
3. On every boot, the system is very unresponsive (mouse
cursor updates every 3 seconds, the login screen fade-in takes 6
seconds to finish) for the first 5 minutes or so.
Liwei
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > Hello James, > After successfully building the PV drivers, I installed them on a > XP32 HVM. Everything seems to work well except for the following which > I''m not sure is normal behaviour: > 1. There is still a leftover "Xen pci device #0" without any > drivers. Instance ID is "XEN\PCI\4&32FE5319&0&00"Are you passing through any pci devices? The main driver (xenpci - although it is nothing to do with pci passthrough) creates a device node for everything under the devices key in xenstore and so it creates a node for a pci passthrough device even though there is no driver for it.> 2. Although I see in device manager that the boot disk is now > "XEN PV DISK SCSI Disk Device", is it normal to not see any xen block > activity in "xl top"?I don''t think that is normal. I see activity on my systems when using xentop.> 3. On every boot, the system is very unresponsive (mouse > cursor updates every 3 seconds, the login screen fade-in takes 6 > seconds to finish) for the first 5 minutes or so. >Definitely sounds like something is wrong there... are you running the debug build of the drivers? If so, things are logged to /var/log/xen/qemu-dm-<domu name>.log. If too much is logged then qemu tends to throttle the domu which could do things like you describe. Have a look in the /var/log/xen/qemu-dm-<domu name>.log file and see if it is getting a lot of information logged to it. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 30 June 2011 14:57, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> > Are you passing through any pci devices? The main driver (xenpci - > although it is nothing to do with pci passthrough) creates a device node > for everything under the devices key in xenstore and so it creates a > node for a pci passthrough device even though there is no driver for it.Nope I''m only testing PV drivers on this VM, xl pci-list domU gives me an empty table: # xl pci-list XenPVXP Vdev Device #> I don''t think that is normal. I see activity on my systems when using > xentop.Just to confirm, am I supposed to change anything in the VM configuration? Even on ioemu, the emulated NIC was hidden and the XenNet device loaded instead, so I assumed everything else would behave similarly. Just did a quick check by changing the lines to: vif = [ ''type=netfront, bridge=xenbr0'' ] disk = [ ''phy:/dev/mapper/VMStore-XPPV,xvdb,w'', ''file:/XPSP3.iso,xvda:cdrom,r'' ] Still the same, xentop reports activity for the network device but not the block device: NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k) MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR VBD_RSECT VBD_WSECT SSID XenPVXP ------ 113 77.6 1038180 6.2 1049600 6.3 2 1 198 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This appears in the QEMU log: Using xvdb for guest''s hdb Strip off blktap sub-type prefix to /dev/mapper/VMStore-XPPV (drv ''aio'') Using file /dev/mapper/VMStore-XPPV in read-write mode Using xvda for guest''s hda Strip off blktap sub-type prefix to /XPSP3.iso (drv ''aio'') Using file /XPSP3.iso in read-only mode> Definitely sounds like something is wrong there... are you running the > debug build of the drivers? If so, things are logged to > /var/log/xen/qemu-dm-<domu name>.log. If too much is logged then qemu > tends to throttle the domu which could do things like you describe. > > Have a look in the /var/log/xen/qemu-dm-<domu name>.log file and see if > it is getting a lot of information logged to it.Not running the debug version. But these lines in the log file are suspect: Unknown PV product 2 loaded in guest PV driver build 1 xen be: qdisk-51728: xen be: qdisk-51728: error: unknown operation (255) error: unknown operation (255)> > James >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 30 June 2011 14:53, Liwei <xieliwei@gmail.com> wrote: ----snip----> 3. On every boot, the system is very unresponsive (mouse > cursor updates every 3 seconds, the login screen fade-in takes 6 > seconds to finish) for the first 5 minutes or so.I think I just found the cause of this. It appears that any high network load causes 100% CPU utilisation. None of the processes are taking up the CPU cycles though, so I assume its the XenNet driver.> > Liwei >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 30 June 2011 15:45, Liwei <xieliwei@gmail.com> wrote:> On 30 June 2011 14:53, Liwei <xieliwei@gmail.com> wrote: > ----snip---- >> 3. On every boot, the system is very unresponsive (mouse >> cursor updates every 3 seconds, the login screen fade-in takes 6 >> seconds to finish) for the first 5 minutes or so. > > I think I just found the cause of this. It appears that any high > network load causes 100% CPU utilisation. None of the processes are > taking up the CPU cycles though, so I assume its the XenNet driver.Just an update. Starting with a fresh XP SP3 install, I tried installing (in that order): 1. Latest version from hg 2. 0.10.0.134 from meadowcourt 3. 0.11.0.238 from meadowcourt Each time reverting to initial state via System Restore. The results were all similar: 1. Xentop shows no block activity 2. Unresponsive UI + bad speed when transferring files from Dom0 to VM 3. For small files (<5MB), the above problem doesn''t occur 4. For file transfers from the VM to Dom0, the above problem doesn''t occur as well 5. Stray Xen pci device #0 with no driver installed The same thing occurs with check RX checksum dis/enabled. I now suspect that something changed in the recent xen and/or kernel (since I''m running yesterday''s snapshot) that''s causing this. Or is my hardware at fault? Please tell me if I can be of help remedying this.> >> >> Liwei >> >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > I think I just found the cause of this. It appears that any high > > network load causes 100% CPU utilisation. None of the processes are > > taking up the CPU cycles though, so I assume its the XenNet driver. > > Just an update. Starting with a fresh XP SP3 install, I tried > installing (in that order): > 1. Latest version from hg > 2. 0.10.0.134 from meadowcourt > 3. 0.11.0.238 from meadowcourt > Each time reverting to initial state via System Restore. > > The results were all similar: > 1. Xentop shows no block activity > 2. Unresponsive UI + bad speed when transferring files from Dom0to VM> 3. For small files (<5MB), the above problem doesn''t occur > 4. For file transfers from the VM to Dom0, the above problem > doesn''t occur as well > 5. Stray Xen pci device #0 with no driver installed > > The same thing occurs with check RX checksum dis/enabled. > > I now suspect that something changed in the recent xen and/or kernel > (since I''m running yesterday''s snapshot) that''s causing this. Or is my > hardware at fault? > > Please tell me if I can be of help remedying this. >Can you post your domu config file? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 10:34, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:>> > I think I just found the cause of this. It appears that any high >> > network load causes 100% CPU utilisation. None of the processes are >> > taking up the CPU cycles though, so I assume its the XenNet driver. >> >> Just an update. Starting with a fresh XP SP3 install, I tried >> installing (in that order): >> 1. Latest version from hg >> 2. 0.10.0.134 from meadowcourt >> 3. 0.11.0.238 from meadowcourt >> Each time reverting to initial state via System Restore. >> >> The results were all similar: >> 1. Xentop shows no block activity >> 2. Unresponsive UI + bad speed when transferring files from Dom0 > to VM >> 3. For small files (<5MB), the above problem doesn''t occur >> 4. For file transfers from the VM to Dom0, the above problem >> doesn''t occur as well >> 5. Stray Xen pci device #0 with no driver installed >> >> The same thing occurs with check RX checksum dis/enabled. >> >> I now suspect that something changed in the recent xen and/or kernel >> (since I''m running yesterday''s snapshot) that''s causing this. Or is my >> hardware at fault? >> >> Please tell me if I can be of help remedying this. >> > > Can you post your domu config file? > > James >#cat /etc/xen/XPTest.cfg builder=''hvm'' memory = 1024 vcpus = 2 name = "XPTest" vif = [ ''type=netfront, mac=00:01:23:00:23:23, bridge=xenbr0'' ] disk = [ ''phy:/dev/mapper/VMStore-XPTest,hdb,w'', ''file:/gplpv.iso,hda:cdrom,r'' ] #----------------------------------------------------------------------------- # boot on floppy (a), hard disk (c) or CD-ROM (d) # default: hard disk, cd-rom, floppy boot="cd" sdl=0 vnc=1 vncconsole=1 vncdisplay=0 vncpasswd='''' usbdevice=''tablet'' _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> #cat /etc/xen/XPTest.cfg > builder=''hvm'' > memory = 1024 > vcpus = 2 > name = "XPTest" > vif = [ ''type=netfront, mac=00:01:23:00:23:23, bridge=xenbr0'' ] > disk = [ ''phy:/dev/mapper/VMStore-XPTest,hdb,w'',''file:/gplpv.iso,hda:cdrom,r''> ] > >#----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------> # boot on floppy (a), hard disk (c) or CD-ROM (d) > # default: hard disk, cd-rom, floppy > boot="cd" > sdl=0 > vnc=1 > vncconsole=1 > vncdisplay=0 > vncpasswd='''' > usbdevice=''tablet''Hmmm... add /PATCHTPR to your boot.ini entry in the XP machine and see if that improves things much. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 10:44, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> > Hmmm... add /PATCHTPR to your boot.ini entry in the XP machine and see > if that improves things much. > > James >boot.ini now reads: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /PATCHTPR Nothing changed, the UI still becomes unresponsive on network load. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > On 1 July 2011 10:44, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au>wrote:> > > > Hmmm... add /PATCHTPR to your boot.ini entry in the XP machine andsee> > if that improves things much. > > > > James > > > > boot.ini now reads: > [boot loader] > timeout=30 > default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS > [operating systems] > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP > Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /PATCHTPR > > Nothing changed, the UI still becomes unresponsive on network load.What CPU are you using? And try vcpus=1 and see if that makes much difference. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 11:02, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> > What CPU are you using?# cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model model : 30 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz> And try vcpus=1 and see if that makes much difference.Nope, same thing as before.> > James > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > On 1 July 2011 11:02, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au>wrote:> > > > What CPU are you using? > > # cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model > model : 30 > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz > > > And try vcpus=1 and see if that makes much difference. > > Nope, same thing as before. >I''m nearly out of ideas... can you try the checked build and send me the qemu output? What IRQL is the xenpci device running on? Also, is this is a bare install? Do you have a firewall running? And how much network activity does it take to slow the machine down? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 11:14, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> > I''m nearly out of ideas... can you try the checked build and send me the > qemu output?See attached. Its an older log generated a few hours ago.> > What IRQL is the xenpci device running on?Argh, didn''t get to check that before executing the System Restore. Hopefully that information is in the log> > Also, is this is a bare install? Do you have a firewall running?Yes, it is fresh from Windows Setup. No firewall except Windows Firewall running.> > And how much network activity does it take to slow the machine down?I don''t have an exact definition of the amount of network activity. Basically I ftp over to Dom0, get and put files 1meg, 5meg, 10meg and 100meg in size. In all cases except for the 1meg and sometimes the 5 and 10meg, the UI becomes unresponsive as soon as I execute the command.> > James >Sorry, have to rush off for something. Back in a few hours. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 11:30, Liwei <xieliwei@gmail.com> wrote:> On 1 July 2011 11:14, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote: >> >> I''m nearly out of ideas... can you try the checked build and send me the >> qemu output? > > See attached. Its an older log generated a few hours ago.Attached is a fresh log.> >> >> What IRQL is the xenpci device running on? > > Argh, didn''t get to check that before executing the System Restore. > Hopefully that information is in the log >Xen PCI is using IRQ 28.>> >> Also, is this is a bare install? Do you have a firewall running? > > Yes, it is fresh from Windows Setup. No firewall except Windows > Firewall running. > >> >> And how much network activity does it take to slow the machine down? > > I don''t have an exact definition of the amount of network activity. > Basically I ftp over to Dom0, get and put files 1meg, 5meg, 10meg and > 100meg in size. In all cases except for the 1meg and sometimes the 5 > and 10meg, the UI becomes unresponsive as soon as I execute the > command. > >> >> James >> > > Sorry, have to rush off for something. Back in a few hours. >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > See attached. Its an older log generated a few hours ago. > > Attached is a fresh log. >This doesn''t seem to have /PATCHTPR in the boot.ini entry: 12953982738531: XenPCI SystemStartOptions = NOEXECUTE=OPTIN FASTDETECT Was it added at the time the log was generated? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1 July 2011 18:29, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> > This doesn''t seem to have /PATCHTPR in the boot.ini entry: > > 12953982738531: XenPCI SystemStartOptions = NOEXECUTE=OPTIN > FASTDETECT > > Was it added at the time the log was generated? > > James >Whoops, forgot that the system restore undid my boot.ini change. See attached for another log file with patchtpr specified. Also, to give you a better idea of what I''m seeing, here''s the FTP test result (this is over a 200/100Mb link to my ISP): =======ISP to VM (in all instances except for 1meg, the UI becomes unresponsive during the transfer) =======ftp> get 1meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 1meg (1000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 1000000 bytes received in 0.06Seconds 15873.02Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 5meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 5meg (5000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 5000000 bytes received in 0.27Seconds 18867.92Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 10meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 10meg (10000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 10000000 bytes received in 16.05Seconds 623.17Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 100meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 100meg (100000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 100000000 bytes received in 322.48Seconds 310.09Kbytes/sec. =======VM to ISP =======ftp> put 1meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 1000000 bytes sent in 0.09Seconds 10638.30Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 5meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 5000000 bytes sent in 0.39Seconds 12787.72Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 10meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 10000000 bytes sent in 0.78Seconds 12804.10Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 100meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 100000000 bytes sent in 7.66Seconds 13061.65Kbytes/sec. Compare the above to what I''m getting from a non-PV VM: =======ISP to VM =======ftp> get 1meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 1meg (1000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 1000000 bytes received in 0.06Seconds 17543.86Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 5meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 5meg (5000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 5000000 bytes received in 0.24Seconds 20576.13Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 10meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 10meg (10000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 10000000 bytes received in 0.47Seconds 21141.65Kbytes/sec. ftp> get 50meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 50meg (50000000 bytes). 226 File send OK. ftp: 50000000 bytes received in 2.90Seconds 17241.38Kbytes/sec. =======VM to ISP =======ftp> put 1meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 1000000 bytes sent in 0.09Seconds 11111.11Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 5meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 5000000 bytes sent in 0.40Seconds 12562.81Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 10meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 10000000 bytes sent in 0.79Seconds 12658.23Kbytes/sec. ftp> put 50meg 200 PORT command successful. Consider using PASV. 150 Ok to send data. 226 File receive OK. ftp: 50000000 bytes sent in 3.95Seconds 12667.85Kbytes/sec. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> Whoops, forgot that the system restore undid my boot.ini change. See > attached for another log file with patchtpr specified. > > Also, to give you a better idea of what I''m seeing, here''s the FTP > test result (this is over a 200/100Mb link to my ISP): >Sorry, kind of late to this conversation, but a couple of things... 1) With regard to original question about the stray "Xen Pci Device 0", I see this exact same item in my Device Manager, but it''s never been the source of any problems. 2) For network performance, can you tell me if you have Checksum Offloading enabled on the network device in device manager? Sorry, James, to keep on about this one, but in every Windows VM on any host in my environment I have to disable Checksum Offload and Large Send Offload to get decent performance. The difference is quite incredible - I get sub-1Mb/s performance with them enabled, and anywhere from 300Mb/s and up with it disabled. -Nick -------- 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
On 2 July 2011 02:07, Nick Couchman <Nick.Couchman@seakr.com> wrote:> > Sorry, kind of late to this conversation, but a couple of things... > 1) With regard to original question about the stray "Xen Pci Device 0", > I see this exact same item in my Device Manager, but it''s never been the > source of any problems.Yes it didn''t bother me much either, but I suspect it may actually be xenusb (since I don''t see any xenusb related entries in device manager) or something the driver isn''t picking up.> 2) For network performance, can you tell me if you have Checksum > Offloading enabled on the network device in device manager? Sorry, > James, to keep on about this one, but in every Windows VM on any host in > my environment I have to disable Checksum Offload and Large Send Offload > to get decent performance. The difference is quite incredible - I get > sub-1Mb/s performance with them enabled, and anywhere from 300Mb/s and > up with it disabled. >Nope, but I gave it a try after your suggestion, turned off "Checksum Offload", "Large Send Offload" and "Scatter/Gather". Didn''t solve my 100% utilisation problem, but it does show some slight ISP to VM speed improvement ( but that''s for the 1meg and 5meg files, too small to be a fair measure). Have you tried upgrading xen, Dom0 kernel and compiling your own PV drivers?> -Nick > > > > -------- > 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
One other thing, try disabling the windows firewall service. Is it XP SP3? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Yes, the previous two tests were conducted with windows firewall turned off. Yes, it is XP SP3. Sent from my Windows Phone From: James Harper Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 9:10 To: Liwei; Nick Couchman Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Re: Xen pci device #0 One other thing, try disabling the windows firewall service. Is it XP SP3? James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > Yes, the previous two tests were conducted with windows firewallturned> off. > > Yes, it is XP SP3. >It shouldn''t matter so much for SP3, but there is a difference between turning off the firewall and stopping the firewall service. Can you confirm that you''ve done the latter? Thanks James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Oh, that would be my bad. The service is still enabled. I''m out now though, will update you when I get back. Sent from my Windows Phone From: James Harper Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2011 9:13 To: Liwei Xie; Nick Couchman Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Re: Xen pci device #0> > Yes, the previous two tests were conducted with windows firewallturned> off. > > Yes, it is XP SP3. >It shouldn''t matter so much for SP3, but there is a difference between turning off the firewall and stopping the firewall service. Can you confirm that you''ve done the latter? Thanks James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > Oh, that would be my bad. The service is still enabled. I''m out now > though, will update you when I get back. >I don''t expect it to make a significant difference. Under SP2 (I think) having the firewall service running could cause a serious problem under some circumstances, but I believe Microsoft resolved all of that by SP3. I think it''s worth testing though. James _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 2 July 2011 09:23, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:> I don''t expect it to make a significant difference. Under SP2 (I think) > having the firewall service running could cause a serious problem under > some circumstances, but I believe Microsoft resolved all of that by SP3. > > I think it''s worth testing though. > > James >Just tested it after a reboot with the firewall service set to disabled. No change. =( I''m thinking of trying different kernel/xen versions, which specific versions are you using? Can you provide a link to the source or dpkg? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users