WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] poor harddisk performance HVM domain (Windows 2003 guest

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] poor harddisk performance HVM domain (Windows 2003 guest)
From: Joost van den Broek <joost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:37:59 +0200
Delivery-date: Sun, 07 May 2006 06:39:02 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200605041625.39239.joost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <200605041625.39239.joost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1
Hi,

I'd like to see some confirmation on this one, since I'm experimenting with 
this for days and being unable to get acceptable transfer speeds. I thought 
such poor performance should not happen with VT? 

It even gets worse when installing and using Ubuntu HVM, can't enable DMA 
for the QEMU harddisk, resulting in a very slow +-3.5MB/s read. Isn't there 
any way to resolve this?

 - Joost

On Thursday 4 May 2006 16:25, Joost van den Broek wrote:
> I am now running into another problem, the networking one has been solved
> (thanks Dave). As I posted to my previous thread, the poor networking
> performance is most probably caused by the harddisk. Running some
> benchmarks gives a max of 10MB/s read throughput, while write activities
> don't go beyond 5MB/s. The guest's write cache on the disk is enabled.
>
> I tried both image and physical disk partition, no difference. The CPU
> and memory benchmarks on the other hand, are close to native. So the
> bottleneck is definitely the (virtual) harddisk.
>
> Dave (and ofcourse others), what is your experience, do you have better
> read/write results?
>
> - Joost
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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