On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:40:35AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:16:55, você escreveu:
>
> Hi Pasi
>
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > > Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:
> > >
> > > Hi Brendan...
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> > > > > May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> > > > > influence on performance.
> > > > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is
> > > > > light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a
> > > > > Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > > >
> > > > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
> > > > I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
> > > > remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
> > > > unless I kill it.
> > >
> > > Right
> > >
> > > > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > > > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> > > > not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
> > > > written since the most recent checkpoint).
> > >
> > > What you suggest... NFS!
> > >
> > > > It sounds like your network
> > > > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
> > > > some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> > >
> > > My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network, make
> > > with a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
> >
> > Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing?
>
> Well, I try too with crossover network cable, in Giga Ethernet, but I have
> the
> same...
>
> >
> > > I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0". On
> > > fact, Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> >
> > I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high cpu
> > usage in dom0? Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also normal "top"
> > in dom0.
>
> Ok... I run xm top and get this:
>
> NAME
> Domain-0
>
> STATE
> -----r
>
> CPU(sec)
> 135
>
>
> CPU(%)
> 0.6
>
So it's not using much CPU.
> MEM(k)
> 7226368
>
> MEM(%)
> 86.2
>
Did you configure dom0_mem= for Xen?
See:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenBestPractices
Or is there something in dom0 using all the memory for real?
Run "top" in dom0, and sort by memory usage by pressing shift+m.
> MAXME(k)
> no limit
>
> MAXMEM(%)
> n/a
>
> VCPUS
> 2
>
> Something wrong!!!
>
> >>> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
> > > > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores.
> > >
> > > I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways to
> > > me, I'll appreciate...
> >
> > See:
> > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems
> >
> > There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0 has?"
> > and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"
>
> I see... However, this procedure do not take alway the beneficity of multi-
> core processors to my VM's!!!!
>
You can still use multiple cores on your VMs.
If you don't want to dedicate a core only for dom0, at least configure the
domain weights so that dom0 is guaranteed to get enough CPU time.
-- Pasi
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home