| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] XEN - networking and performance
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-users-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 4:51 PM
>
> Jeff Sturm wrote:
>
> >One of the traps we've run into when virtualizing moderately I/O-heavy
> >hosts, is not sizing our disk arrays right. Not in terms of capacity
> >(terabytes) but in spindles. If each physical host normally has 4
> >dedicated disks, for example, virtualizing 8 of these onto a domU
> >attached to a disk array with 16 drives effectively cuts that ratio
> >from 4:1 down to 2:1. Latency goes up, throughput goes down.
>
> Not only that, but you also guarantee that the I/O is across different areas
> of the disk
> (different partitions/logical volumes) and so you also virtually guarantee a
> lot more
> seek activity.
Very true, yes. In such an environment, sequential disk performance means very
little. You need good random I/O throughput and that's hard to get with
mechanical disks, beyond a few thousand iops. 15k disks help, a larger chassis
with more disks helps, but that's just throwing $$$ at the problem and doesn't
really break through the iops barrier.
Anyone tried SSD with good results? I'm sure capacity requirements can make it
cost-prohibitive for many.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home