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] disk performance about half in domU? + question about Xe

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 15:21 +0100, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I don't know how relevant our experience is since we are still on Xen
> > 2.0.7 and just starting to test 3.1, however, we have noticed the same
> > thing.
> 
> Yay - it's always somewhat satisfying to see how stable the 2.x series was 
> for 
> people and that they're still using it.  ISTR that 2.x (or maybe it was the 
> early 3.x?) might have had some weird block performance regression that crept 
> in.  The fact you're seeing it for 3.1 is a little weird though.
> 
> > We assumed it was simply I/O bottleneck - we have a single RAID
> > controller trying to service several virtual servers.  We did dedicate a
> > hyperthread to dom0 and changed the scheduler (I do not recall offhand
> > to what) and those made significant improvements but we still cringe
> > when we see how many CPU cycles are simply spent waiting for disk I/O.
> > This is especially scary because, although it is a nasty mix of email,
> > web and database servers along with intensive network I/O on two of the
> > domUs which serve as VPN gateways, the actual usage is quite low - a
> > handful of users coming across an Internet connection.  I don't know how
> > these would fare under LAN load with a few hundred users.
> >
> > Not complaining - just sharing.  Thanks for a great product - John
> 
> Well, it sounds slower than I'd expect things to be from what I remember of 
> the benchmarks...  Have you tried just doing a big dd (e.g. dd a big file 
> into /dev/null using a decent block size) and seeing what raw bandwidth you 
> can get?
> 
> Could you check what scheduler this is?  Credit is the most well supported at 
> the moment.  Is it an SMP or a UP box?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
We haven't tested 3.1 enough to know if this is still a problem.  If it
is important to gather this information for 2.0.7, I'll do so and submit
it.  Please let me know so I don't spend the time unnecessarily.  If it
will be helpful, I most gladly try the dd and figure out what scheduler
we ultimately used.  Thanks - John
-- 
John A. Sullivan III
Open Source Development Corporation
+1 207-985-7880
jsullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Financially sustainable open source development
http://www.opensourcedevel.com


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users