[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


  • To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Age_M <Age_M@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:32:19 +0200
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:35:30 -0700
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.