|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] Release 0.9.5 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows
Hi Ryan;
Sorry about that, it was my first post and I incorrectly assumed the
email would get distributed as HTML. Instead of trying to format that
in ASCII, I've attached a .jpg of the table.
G
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ryan Burke
Sent: 01 June 2008 7:56 PM
To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Release 0.9.5 of GPL PV Drivers for Windows
> James;
>
>
>
> While educating myself in the fine art of Xen I have been lurking on
the
> list and paying close attention to your incredible drivers. I spent
> some time today doing exactly what you asked for, disk performance
> testing with and without your PV drivers, so I thought I would share
my
> results with you and the list along with an interesting observation.
I
> hope you find this useful and have some ideas on what might be going
> wrong. Also, I would like to contribute to Xen in general and this is
> an area where I feel I am able to offer some assistance. If there is
> anything in particular that you would like me to test in more detail
or
> if you need any more information please let me know and I will do my
> best to make the time to work with you on this. I have a rather large
> "Windows" estate running on various Hypervisors so I can probably come
> up with just about any configuration you want. My current test
> configuration is as follows:
>
>
>
> Dell Poweredge 1950, Dual 2.0 Ghz 5400 series Intel Procs , Perc 5i, 2
*
> SATA 750GB (RAID 1 - WB Cache Enabled in bios and Dom0), 16GB RAM.
All
> the BIOS' are one version out of date but there are no major bugs in
any
> of it compelling me to update.
>
>
>
> Xen 3.2.1 compiled from source
>
>
>
> Dom0 is Centos 5.1
>
>
>
> DomU's are on the local storage for testing purposes, an LVM root
> partition (default Centos Installation). The only DomU's running on
the
> machine are the ones mentioned here for these tests and tests were
> carried out on one DomU at a time.
>
>
>
> All DomU's are fresh installations of: Windows Server 2003, Standard,
> R2 SP2 <No windows updates>
>
>
>
> I've attached the iometer configuration that I used.
>
>
>
> Observation:
>
>
>
> I have observed a possible incompatibility between QCOW image files
and
> the PV drivers. If I create a DomU with the above spec using an image
> file created using dd, for example:
>
>
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=guest_disk_sparse.img bs=1k seek=8192k count=1
>
>
>
> Then the drivers work fine.
>
>
>
> If I create the image file using:
>
>
>
> qemu-img create -f qcow2 giest_disk_qcow.qcow 8G
>
>
>
> I get a BSOD.. I can send you a pretty screen shot if you like. And
> depending on my "disk" line in the HVM config I get the BSOD at
> different times. Tap:aio bsods early in the boot and tap:qcow bsods
> quite late.
>
>
>
> I double checked these results with two fresh machines, one running PV
> 0.9.1 and the other 0.9.5 just to be sure but it would be great if
> someone could double check my work?
>
>
>
> Obviously I would prefer performance and stability over the
> functionality that the QCow disks give me but if this is an easy fix
it
> would be great to have it all.
>
>
>
>
>
> IOMETER Performance Results (see config attached)
>
>
>
>
>
> Xen 3.2.1
>
> No Tools
>
> Xen 3.2.1
>
> PV 0.95
>
> Xen 3.2.1
>
> PV 0.9.1
>
> Xen 3.2.1
>
> PV 0.9.5
>
> Machine Name
>
> Qcow1
>
> Qcow
>
> W2K3
>
> RAW
>
> Image Type
>
> QCOW2
>
> QCOW2
>
> RAW
>
> RAW
>
> MAX IO's
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Total I/O's per second
>
> 1801.43
>
> BSOD
>
> 4385.78
>
> 16330.33
>
> Total MBs per Second
>
> 0.88
>
> 2.14
>
> 7.97
>
> Average I/O response Time
>
> 4.4096
>
> 1.8225
>
> 0.4890
>
> MAX Throughput
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Total I/O's per second
>
> 576.76
>
> 1446.27
>
> 547.64
>
> Total MBs per Second
>
> 36.05
>
> 90.39
>
> 34.23
>
> Average I/O response Time
>
> 13.8607
>
> 5.5269
>
> 14.5923
>
> RealLife
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Total I/O's per second
>
> 404.61
>
> 6763.00
>
> 610.42
>
> Total MBs per Second
>
> 0.79
>
> 13.21
>
> 1.19
>
> Average I/O response Time
>
> 19.7471
>
> 1.1815
>
> 13.0836
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Geoff Wiener
Geoff,
Is there anyway you could reformat those test results? I am having a
very
hard time following what the actual results are for each test.
Thanks,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
XenPerformanceResults.JPG
Description: XenPerformanceResults.JPG
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
Home
