 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 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-users] Network monitoring with cacti (SNMP), Frédéric VANNIÈRE |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Was simple performance stats between Xen 2.0 and 3.0 (was Re: [Xen-users] Xen, NFS performance, rsize, wsize and MTU), Ernst Bachmann |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-users] Network monitoring with cacti (SNMP), Frédéric VANNIÈRE |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Was simple performance stats between Xen 2.0 and 3.0 (was Re: [Xen-users] Xen, NFS performance, rsize, wsize and MTU), Ernst Bachmann |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
