| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Halsign 1.1
On Sunday 09 March 2008 11:16:30 pm halsign wrote:
> It seems that you didn't install the host packages.
> You can try again with host packages installed.
I did, and I had the gkhost service running. I did not install the kernel &
xen packages. I'm not going to downgrade the kernel & xen on the chance that
I will get faster performance.
> As for disk, you can do benchmark on local disk again
> to avoid the impact of samba mount.
That's my limitation. My Fedora xen server has limited space, so I only put my
everyday vms there. My test systems are on another computer. Would nfs be any
faster, in your experience? I'm eventually going to convert this other
computer (SuSE 10.3) to iscsi when I get a chance.
What I did in the benchmark was to compare qemu to halsign under the same
conditions. I know I'm not going to get fast performance - it was the
relative difference I was interested in.
> As for nic, about 700Mbps (~20x faster than qemu)
> can be acheived with TurboGate1.1.
With a 1Gpbs nic, right?
> The nic benchmark enviroment is pasted below:
>
> Target PC: Dell Optiplex 745 (core 2 6300, 1.86G, 2G memory)
And you have a core 2 duo - I have only a core duo. My iperf test was domu
client to dom0 listener/server, Iperf is generating the data, so nothing is
being read off the samba mount vbd, so we are testing the speed of a purely
software nic, and faster processors will perform better.
Everybody's mileage will vary. You get great results - I don't, all tho it's
still better than Realtek.
Thanx for taking an interest, tho.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home