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

Was simple performance stats between Xen 2.0 and 3.0 (was Re: [Xen-users

To: "Chris Fanning" <christopher.fanning@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Was simple performance stats between Xen 2.0 and 3.0 (was Re: [Xen-users] Xen, NFS performance, rsize, wsize and MTU)
From: "Nicholas Lee" <emptysands@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:09:12 +1300
Cc: xen ml <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:09:39 +0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type; b=ccim/THTZeqarcyxeHuGUiLMGmajXszM6HsyAykf4jTS7MD4mZppe30vvYPS0I4wWbWJJqxH932/2alwODkB7fRO0mUaM0UEOLmvGv79rDI1pycbaX+Kj84CjulE7/XJ3hhPLNZiuJUHo3aokeOuVSsdO2GFMPHPpjGxOpPn9Tw=
Envelope-to: www-data@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>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On 23/02/06, Chris Fanning <christopher.fanning@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was trying to set up home accounts on a domU.
I've tested what you said about homes on domU and guess what, you're right :)

I'm going to set them up on dom0 (or somewhere else).

I've got two machines in a colo now with Xen. Now I've sort out my bridging problem I can do a bit of simple testing. Its a reasonable difference.

From x335 domU (running 2.0) to v20z (running 3.0):

[nic@shell:~] scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg wuwei:   # host0 on v20z
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB  10.5MB/s   00:04
[nic@shell:~] scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg svn: #domU on v20z
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB   4.7MB/s   00:09

[nic@shell:~] scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg stateless: # host0 on x335
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB  14.0MB/s   00:03
[nic@shell:~] scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg flavour: # domU on x335
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB   1.5MB/s   00:28


However, looks like 3.0 to 3.0 is much better.

nic@svn:~$ scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg wuwei: # host0  from domU on v20z
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB  42.0MB/s   00:01
nic@svn:~$ scp Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg rails: # domU from domU on v20z
Atiz_1606_CNNH.mpg                                                                                        100%   42MB  14.0MB/s   00:03


Still there is a large difference between dom0 to domU and domU to domU and obviously a domU in Xen 2.0 is not able to handle supplying other domUs on the same host0 effectively.

--
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>