The choice for Xen 2 was mostly because of a network issue discussed in
this list some time ago (by Falko Timme). I believe this issue is still
open.
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-01/msg00504.html
I have a question open in this list about upgrading. I would like to give
3 a go offcourse. However i would hate the idea to do a complete clean
reinstall of Debian. Is there somekind of hint on upgrading from 2 to 3?
Using the .deb packages i figure that i would just move all the 2.0 stuff
of the system and install the .deb packs overwriting the prior install of
2.0.8 from source.
Hahaa lots of questions :-)
Gr,
Bart
> Why don't you try xen3? Even if there is no performance benefit, it would
> help
> you to stay up2date with the recent development. But maybe even xen3
> solves
> some performance issues without the need for further tweaking.
>
> you are using debian? I would suggest taking a look at the following post:
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-01/msg00641.html
>
> --Ralph
>
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2006 14:40 schrieb Bart van den Heuvel:
>> Only changed the 100 hz setting to 1000 hz and turned Big mem support
>> (4gb) on for both the dom0 and domU kernels. I configured the virtual
>> machine to have 1000mb memory, it only used 830 meg or so without the
>> big
>> mem option.
>> That's viseble in the graph at the bottom of
>> http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/
>>
>> 75 fps is not a big deal! other systems run with 200 - 500 fps but it's
>> a
>> start! And if my players are happy...
>>
>> I will still try and boot to a normal debian kernel and run the same
>> gameservers (they can run on the same machine) and test the difference
>> between the Xen and the Normal world.
>>
>> Gr,
>>
>> Bart
>>
>> > Did you change anything else to get this or only to 1000HZ?
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bart van
>> den
>>
>> Heuvel
>>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:17 AM
>> > To: Ernst Bachmann
>> > Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Running Xen 2.0 for Counter Strike: Source
>> >
>> > Ernst,
>> >
>> > I see what you mean, if your thougts prove to be true than vserver
>> would
>>
>> be more of an option, i would hate to leave xen the concept is very
>> attractive.
>>
>> > Now that i look at my graphs again I see a very different picture!
>> >
>> > Please check http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/
>> >
>> > FPS is way up! I must be going MAD....
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Bart
>> >
>> >> On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:37, Bart van den Heuvel wrote:
>> >>> I have recompiled the kernels, both dom0 and domU. Counterstrike
>> >
>> > comes
>> >
>> >>> in
>> >>> a compiled form (silly enterprises still do that :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> All is wel and i got the change to compile in the bigmem option! So
>> >
>> > i'm
>> >
>> >>> very happy there. I can now use more mem for my virtual servers...
>> >
>> > But
>> >
>> >>> thats where the happyness stops!
>> >>>
>> >>> Instead of a performance upgrade fps is now steady on 1, so the 1000
>> >
>> > hz
>> >
>> >>> options made the fps value go from 50 to 1 instead of a higher
>> value.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm running like this for a few hours... Maybe more inspiration will
>> >>> come to me.
>> >>
>> >> The HZ Value sets how often timer interrups occur, so instead of
>>
>> interrupting
>>
>> >> work 250 times a second, you now interrupt it 1000 times.
>> >>
>> >> I guess timer interrupts in xen are more expensive than on plain
>> >
>> > linux,
>> >
>> >> since
>> >> they also involve the hypervisor (correct me if I'm wrong here)
>> >>
>> >> if three domains use the same cpu, xen needs to switch the running
>> >
>> > domain
>> >
>> >> 3000
>> >> times a second, I guess you waste a lot of cycles there.
>> >>
>> >> Another reason (wild guess) could be: the hypervisor still generates
>>
>> interrupts at 250HZ, but now the domU kernel now expects them coming
>>
>> > at
>> >
>> >> 1000Hz, hence the internal timing of the kernel is way off, resulting
>> >
>> > of
>> >
>> >> the
>> >> timing source of your CS server working only on full seconds now => 1
>>
>> frame
>>
>> >> per second max...
>> >>
>> >> For applications requiring short response time, a "lesser"
>> >
>> > virtualization
>> >
>> >> method, like linux-vserver, might provide much better performance.
>> >>
>> >> /Ernst
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Xen-users mailing list
>> >> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Xen-users mailing list
>> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Xen-users mailing list
>> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home