Hi Andreas,
You really should run I/O tests that run outside of host memory so you
can see the performance hit at the disk level. Otherwise you are just
testing RAM.
I would like to see your results, but I am also interested in seeing
the disk performance, not just testing of the RAM.
I am collecting my results here:
http://github.com/deshantm/Rapid-Recovery-Desktop-Testing/tree/master/results
My guest systems have 1G allocated to them. The host system has 4 GB.
Desktop class system, Intel Core 2 duo 2.4 GHz.
So far only KVM, but Xen is planned for future work.
Thanks,
Todd
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Balg, Andreas <a.balg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Todd,
>
> I've allocated 2GB of memory to the guests - The host-system has 16GB of RAM
> and I run 7 VMs only - so all happens within the boundaries of physical RAM.
>
> I could offer you the raw data as well - I could send you an excel Sheet with
> all of the Graphs and data used so far. Would that be useful to you? Of course
> I'd be interested in your results as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> XiNCS GmbH MwST-Nr: 695 740
> Schmidshaus 118 HR-Nr: CH-300.4.015.621-9
> CH-9064 Hundwil AR
>
> Webseite: http://www.xincs.eu
> AGB: http://www.xincs.eu/agb.html
> Tel. +41 (0)31 526 50 95
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----- Originalnachricht -----
> Von: Todd Deshane <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
> Gesendet: Son, 8.8.2010 03:17
> An: "Balg, Andreas" <a.balg@xxxxxxxx>
> Betreff: Re: [Xen-users] Impressive Performance Problems with Small-Files
> /Small Blocksizes
>
> Hi,
>
> How much memory is allocated to the guests? The reason I ask is that
> are these runs all or most in memory?
>
> Do you have raw data that I could look at?
>
> I am doing some benchmarking of my own and trying to figure out some
> strange KVM data.
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Balg, Andreas <a.balg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> hello everybody,
>>
>> during some extensive benchmarking for an evaluation we found some issues
>> with
>> i/o-performance and also memory bandwidth of Xen 3.4.2 (using XCP-0.5)
>> running
>> on a quite up-to-date and performant Dell-R610 Server (2 x Xeon E5620, 16G
>> RAM,
>> 4 x SATA 15K HDD's - RAID 5):
>>
>> - Especially for small block sizes (below 32k) the I/O is very poor.
>>
>> to give some figures: The same Benchmark
>> "time iozone -az -i0 -i1 -i2 -i8 -Rb results.xls"
>>
>> Runs around 3 Minutes on the bare Hardware, around 30 Minutes in a KVM-VM
>> and more than 1 hour(!) in a xen VM - See attached graphs and focus on the
>> front of the diagram (red and blue "foot" of the xen graph)
>>
>> What I'd like to know is, if this is be a glitch in a device driver, an
>> error in our configuration or might be eliminated in any other way using a
>> workaround or other version.
>>
>> Or is this a proble of the differences in Design or just nobody noticed it
>> so far and it should be lokked at by the developers. Without these two
>> significant problems Xen would outperform kvm in almost any possible manner
>> ....
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> XiNCS GmbH MwST-Nr: 695 740
>> Schmidshaus 118 HR-Nr: CH-300.4.015.621-9
>> CH-9064 Hundwil AR
>>
>> Webseite: http://www.xincs.eu
>> AGB: http://www.xincs.eu/agb.html
>> Tel. +41 (0)31 526 50 95
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Deshane
> http://todddeshane.net
> http://runningxen.com
>
--
Todd Deshane
http://todddeshane.net
http://runningxen.com
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home