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] Xen Performance

To: "Fajar A. Nugraha" <fajar@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Xen Performance
From: Grant McWilliams <grantmasterflash@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:54:37 -0700
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:55:46 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=07lbzEV6T02RjdD4KvQ32iryve3Easi/jUVynLW1yyk=; b=fBAt1kpi2/NR6N2KEK3sIvimk7Jnur8kXGdYWa3xwOVIhoVp4oYfJstxDPaYH/1Bwt rgYptIVPZ5nLiVZbueq+Cs9sRNx6mtrmFJM7QQDbWS3lWcGJjXOnU0g+8naxMN82ahkQ zYcbBNzcOomL9dEWCzyVrLE1TOR5IIxI0n8PM=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=Sp2WiCA37FtK6TqxLVOooqJS1TiiE0Pgz7SN4ILbvOtGbFxmdI+5LV62l2EbioanVh Ns075CZ4nEOzXhoQN0g4lfJDQ65aX15nX1IdHKJmb6fViokk6QB8fLq0WC5ra8nGMM0E MSrNnhaMdcV9FZTIlMBLrpzocHuTEqLulBFVg=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7207d96f0910130506l4887cdcdp9858c01685635d80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <713143895.20091010125310@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7207d96f0910121900r183dfe7bv75ee3fbeb33aa716@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ed123fa30910121917v48d3fef3rd06ef86d090efc15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7207d96f0910130008t5e6d81b7x89afb027d1489999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ed123fa30910130105v28545580g48a3bad26c774d5c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7207d96f0910130506l4887cdcdp9858c01685635d80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fajar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Grant McWilliams
<grantmasterflash@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
>> [  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  1.57 GBytes  1.35 Gbits/sec
>>
>> This is on a 2.4GHz Opteron 2378. Since domU <-> domU transfer are
>> mostly CPU-bound, faster CPUs should yield higher performance.

>
> Thanks for the numbers I reran iperf tests and this is what I got on xen
> 3.4.1. This is on an 8 core Intel system with 16GB ram.
>
> DomU to DomU - 2.0 Gbits/sec
> DomU to Dom0 - 3.46 Gbit/sec
> Dom0 to DomU - 346 Mbits/sec
>
> These are similar ratios that I got before but because this system is about
> 3x faster than the old system the numbers are bigger. Fajar, if you get time
> could you see if you see something similar on your system?

That's odd. I'll see if I can get a test Intel box tomorrow to compare
the numbers. In the mean time, what does your environment look like?
64bit? what distro and kernel version?

If possible, can you test installing RHEL/Centos 5.4 64bit dom0 and
update to Gitco's Xen 3.4.1? That's what my setup mostly like, and so
far network performance (including domU <-> domU)  has been great.

--
Fajar

CentOS 5.4? If my time machine worked :-) . I'm already running CentOS 5.3 with Gitco's Xen 3.4.1.

Here's another system: CentOS 5.3 Dom0, CentOS 5.3 DomUs on a Dual Core Duo Xeon system (2.8ghz)

DomU to DomU -  1.93 Gbits/sec
DomU to Dom0 -  2.76 Gbit/sec
Dom0 to DomU -  193 Mbits/sec


A third system running CentOS 5.3 Dom0, Ubuntu 9.04 DomU with Debian Lenny xenified kernel and CentOS 5.3 DomU. Ghz Core2 Duo (2.2 Ghz)

DomU to DomU - 2.89 Gbit/sec
DomU to Dom0 -  4.4 Gbit/sec
Dom0 to DomU -  257 Mbits/sec

None of these summaries are really that accurate because if I do an iperf -c 192.168.0.100 -r  the return speed is always in the toilet.

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 192.168.0.191 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.196 port 57543
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]  0.0-10.0 sec  3.38 GBytes  2.89 Gbits/sec
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.0.196, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[  4] local 192.168.0.191 port 38701 connected with 192.168.0.196 port 5001
write2 failed: Broken pipe
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]  0.0- 0.0 sec  15.6 KBytes    343 Mbits/sec


This is the behavior I observed almost 2 years ago and it still seems to be consistant. Fajar, if you could run these on your systems to see if you're seeing something different. The one thing that's always the same is that I'm using CentOS 5.3 as a Dom0.


Grant McWilliams

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Windows."
Now they have two problems.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>