Re: [Xen-users] sata vs scsi

[Thomas Harold <tgh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yves Dorfsman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been wanting to build a machine to put xen on, and then have a lots 
> of little OS images running on it. I had to put that project on the back 
> burner, but am re-starting it now.
> I have some experience with VMWare, and one problem I've seen on it is 
> that with non-scsi disks (I am saying non-scsi because I don't know if 
> it is ATA or SATA), if one machine keeps the the disk busy, then the 
> other virutal machines can't do anything... I have no idea if it's a 
> VMWare or a hardware problem.
> What's people experience here with xen. Have you had a half a dozen OS, 
> or a dozen OS running with xen on sata disk ? Would one OS bog down the 
> I/O easily ?
I have an increasing preference for RAID10 with 4, 6 or 8 disks in those 
situations.  It seems to hold up better under heavy loads then a single 
disk or RAID1.  Things can get pokey, but the huge bandwidth and disk 
striping make that a short-lived event.
Most of the guest OSs we have running on our one box (a 4-disk RAID10 
SATA array with 5-6 domains) aren't all that heavy against the disk 
array though.  So I'm basing my impressions on doing file copies, 
bonnie++ runs, and just general gut feeling.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users