 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-users
[Xen-users] Performance difference between a "partition image file" and
| To: | Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-users] Performance difference between a "partition image file" and a compressed file system |
| From: | Kevin McKeon <kevin.w.mckeon@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:49:19 -0400 |
| Cc: | |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:50:00 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=Hn+8qlPi8S335ctabUIq1qru+4KxOy6nX/caJITHIQM=; b=VH2Kw/HoSg5aEM5ytwfKIyBgZTg1gxyTBxWS9JTHbpYtFj8rVAgLsXKonCAEqcHu+C weORm2rHkYw4/l9G9/ZpJkrydHEFkm52Ul1lhbdxbozqN4xjHjJ4zkXeFbAglZbvcAq+ MzHFzjDCNefE/swSfmK/scUpOcQmsJ8CSPLZg= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=NAx0yz4FgbW3/XLrHPlHgWp7QoYwpPJSy7AnRqK32VTfFWGzM0M2OOFYUXz3xjga0g EnyGR581A/9gku7zNW9jMmZ7AarYKQkJ8yWQvs/VuLaxtnWwHyvZDdhItAbBWMUzrr8N Eh4HkFr/qPJyWgOaAj/4c/z1Sxe5wpb8i6W8I= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Does anyone know how significant the performance hit is when using a partition image file for the file system of a domU instance as opposed to using a file system on a separate disk?
For example:
disk =['tap:aio:/xen/images/mydomU_partition.img,xvda1,w']
vs
disk =['phy:hda1,xvda1,w']
I realize the second config would be faster, but will the first one work pretty well? Does anyone know of any performance papers written on this subject?
Cheers,
Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-users] Paravirtualized vs HVM - how big is the performance gap?, Steven Timm |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-users] Cluster (VPC), Eucalyptus and preferred distribution to it., Thiago Camargo Martins Cordeiro |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-users] Weekly Community Status, Stephen Spector |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-users] Performance difference between a "partition image file" and a compressed file system, Ferreira, N. L. (Nuno) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
