Re: [Xen-users] major slow down with xen implementation

[Age_M <Age_M@xxxxxx>]

Geoffrey wrote:
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > Geoffrey wrote:
> > > Todd Deshane wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey 
> > > > <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Is this a reasonable expectation with virtualization?
> > > > This doesn't seem quite right to me, try kernbench and
> > > > also make sure the versions of xen and guest kernels
> > > > are the same on the server and laptop for a good
> > > > comparision.
> > > I'm not running xen on the laptop.  Laptop is RHEL 5.2,
> > > kernel: 2.6.18-92.1.10.el5
> > >
> > > > The overhead of Xen PV should be pretty low vs native.
> > > I was wrong when I said we were para-virtualizing, this is full 
> > > virtualization.
> > Well, why not put up the xen config for the domU and see if
> > anybody can suggest some tweaks, but if you are using RH + Xen
> > it would be silly NOT to para-virtualize it.
> Can't para-virtualize.  Running 64bit on the hardware so as to get 
> access to the full 32GB memory.  Running 32bit virtuals, because we 
> have a third party app that won't run on 64bit.  I know...
So? Where is the problem? Check your Xen Caps [1] to confirm, that you 
can run 32bit para-virtualized domU. This is running without problems 
here: 64bit ubuntu dom0 and 32bit para domU ubuntu / debian.
Greetz Age_M

[1] xm info | grep xen_caps
If the result shows xen-3.0-x86_32p is means you could run 32bit 
paravirtualized domUs

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users