WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Xen, NFS performance, rsize, wsize and MTU

To: "Richard Jones" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Xen, NFS performance, rsize, wsize and MTU
From: "Nicholas Lee" <emptysands@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:47:55 +1300
Cc: Ceri Storey <cez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:00:53 +0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=byN3to8U9aCzqZgYcu1bzvuDhaOgCwjHBX+W5v1ndy7OUVItx0MO0CWw0rrpGDp3cV4SQNz4JiJrqj7cAJPEg/yuvNuqeDCWxxBdfWGCsvlMoI9c4/4SqrxvvG0meMyfvbN11wTCgIMFjA3ft//FQwlbqDFPo/qGu3Fwbc0dkqE=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060218103651.GB19511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20060217144112.GA1009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060217203400.GA4884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060218103651.GB19511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 18/02/06, Richard Jones <rich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You're right and it is a single processor machine.  I'm not expecting
blazing performance (we far prefer reliability / predictability).
It's just really is quite slow at the moment and I'm sure that it's
down to some sort of configuration mistake.

I thought the same thing, but two processors didn't seem to solve this for me when I was running something similar with 2.0. Moving the NFS to host0 seemed to be the solution. I didn't try running the NFS server with a  dom0 kernel. That might be worth trying.

http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/


--
Nicholas Lee
http://stateless.geek.nz
gpg 8072 4F86 EDCD 4FC1 18EF  5BDD 07B0 9597 6D58 D70C
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users