On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Simon Hobson wrote:
On 14/11/08, Javier Guerra wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Simon Hobson <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I've deliberately not put the iSCSI initiator in Dom0 as I want to run
the
absolute minimum in Dom0. Also, putting the iSCSI initiator in Dom0 makes
it
harder to move a VM to another host - having it in the DomU means that
the
VM can be moved without any config changes.
you should really try that. the different nature of net- and
block-devices means that there are a lot less context switches per MB
transferred, and the point of acknowledging makes a huge difference in
latency sensibility.
OK, I've *finally* managed to scrounge another box to do some testing on.
I've setup open-iscsi in Dom0 and performance seems to be a lot better - I'm
getting about 20MB/s and the backup server isn't sat on 99% wio :-)
1. I wonder what test did you make to check performance?
I have the same concept with iscsi initiator directly on the domU via
bonding interface-->dedicated vlan on top of bonding-->transparent
bridge in Dom0-->DomU's eth1.
I would expect more advantages (performance, administration) with
iscsi-->DomU model.
I assume this is because the device name can change across restarts. Since
I'm not mounting the volume in Dom0, just passing it to the guest in a "disk
= [ 'phy:v ..." line, any suggestions on the best way to deal with this ?
2. how can you pass the storage without mounting it/having access to, in
Dom0?
regards
Longina
--
--
Longina Przybyszewska, system programmer
IT@Naturvidenskab
IMADA, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Southern Denmark, Odense
Campusvej 55,DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark
tel: +45 6550 2359 - http://www.imada.sdu.dk
email: longina@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home