On 2010年2月22日, Keith Coleman wrote:
> On 2/22/10, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2010年2月19日, Keith Coleman wrote:
> >> I am posting this to xen-devel instead of -users because it paints an
> >> incomplete picture that shouldn't be the basis for deciding how to run
> >> production systems.
> >>
> >> This graph shows the performance under a webserver disk IO workload at
> >> different queue depths. It compares the 4 main IO methods for windows
> >> guests that will be available in the upcoming xen 4.0.0 and 3.4.3
> >> releases: pure HVM, stub domains, gplpv drivers, and xcp winpv
> >> drivers.
> >>
> >> The gplpv and xcp winpv drivers have comparable performance with gplpv
> >> being slightly faster. Both pv drivers are considerably faster than
> >> pure hvm or stub domains. Stub domain performance was about even with
> >> HVM which is lower than we were expecting. We tried a different cpu
> >> pinning in "Stubdom B" with little impact.
> >>
> >
> > What disk backend are you using?
>
> phy, LV
>
That is strange because in that configuration I get a far better
disk bandwidth with stubdoms compared to qemu running in dom0.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel