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

RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2


  • To: 'Pasi Kärkkäinen' <pasik@xxxxxx>, "'Nick Couchman'" <Nick.Couchman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:22:00 -0500
  • Cc: oliver@xxxxxxx, Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:23:51 -0800
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=yCc4XGA3NGBckNFAfQrIPavoYZuTq5bZcQqclyPtK7DxcF6VIb1OQ5PoPtlxj+rTc0 GpD8zEX5qVcTDdS1B7/y2qM/gGRTnPlNuD0FxQby/Zz+s/AdC3K4/U4g7nKjm5rmhT4Y sjyTyY3ZmjJMmhor+s3XO/FpKd/Uf9srlhWYw=
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AclapOFuctJ/DFrMS9+Tph0aezkX1QAA9FHQ

What Drivers are you using, the GLPV or the Novell drivers??

-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:54 AM
To: Nick Couchman
Cc: oliver@xxxxxxx; Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:44:12PM -0700, Nick Couchman wrote:
> Here's my working configuration:
> 1) Intel Xeon E5335
> 2) SLES 10 SP2 64-bit (2.6.16.60)
> 3) Xen 3.2.0 (build included with SLES10 SP2)
> 4) 32-bit Windows HVM using APIC HALs
> 
> I have ~15 Windows HVM domUs running with absolutely no performance
> issues, plus several PV domUs.
> 

Hello.

Might be a good idea to post your configuration file for those (working) 
windows hvm domains.. just so that people can verify all the settings.

-- Pasi


> -Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Wilcock <oliver@xxxxxxx>
> To: Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2
> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:50:37 -0500 (EST)
> 
> 
> So far we have:
> 1. AMD CPU
> 2. kernel 2.6.16?  32 or 64 bit
> 3. Xen 3.2
> 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL.
> 
> Result: unusable performance for Windows HVM.
> 
> Anyone out there using the above combination without problems?
> 
> > Ours is
> >
> > 1. AMD CPU
> > 2. 32 Bit Hypervisor
> > 3. Debian Etch Dom 0
> > 4. Xen 3.2
> > 5. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oliver
> > Wilcock
> > Sent: 09 December 2008 14:07
> > To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] HVM Cpu performance 3.2
> >
> >> Yes thats correct.
> >> The windows dom Us are using between 30-80% usage in xm top and the
> > host
> >> itself is running slow.
> >> Ill have a look at your recommend searches
> >> Thanks for your help
> >> Ian
> >>
> > Excellent, another person with what might be the same problem.
> >
> > I would like to know what the minimum set of common factors are.  I'm
> > starting with this list:
> > 1. AMD CPU
> > 2. 64 bit hypervisor / Dom0?  SLES10 SP2, for me.
> > 3. Xen 3.2
> > 4. guest is 32 bit Windows HVM using ACPI HAL or APIC HAL.
> 
> 
> 

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


_______________________________________________
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®.