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

[Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:55:20PM -0400, 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...
> 

https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv5-announce/2008-May/msg00002.html

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2 GA Announcement"

Technology Previews
-------------------

- 32-bit para-virtualized (PV) guests on
    64-bit AMD64/Intel(r) 64 hosts

So you could try it.. there were some problems with it in RHEL 5.1, and I
assume those were fixed for 5.2. 

-- Pasi

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