From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sun Apr 11 03:50:07 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5445E065B for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:50:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jtubnor@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FHyYp3rC4z4kH7; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:50:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jtubnor@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id y204so3483147wmg.2; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:50:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KJRspdDro2mmzH8GrbV/GsA7YZ4bz4bA8XEGNDVuG+Y=; b=L4LAyrw2vBCzKR8XnVNwK3EffG6ItF1oyqcAikA+cH3rUERn1kcD3tmRahkk2o0Xir SgItyjW9IkAShNm1IKYp3Xb3u8JSkNAS0aMuKKdjzO2rRMNjv0XIlO+K39CT+r2hQHnJ ryy8Yg5mQTh7u8ld/KzQtRCy7CG8MlMdxIT6+5EpdXbFN9qnzjdNoTas107dmINeRh0A HV05Hy8Mm5EMebhjU45RTEbzGIAiQqhsaxzBcyFLpQL99yvhcw8Nd1S6Ir3FwZ/whPkv A8zUGk0GqqKIHND24zAWZgEV6Bs05suVvDlFfGy7Hk81lmaRorOV/WRhgjD3vpdaHwse K/9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ySra/PyznIlH+mzU+1h5yK9xrKjcfNazmTBilRQYSVVT8KNoJ iuAlVorK/KUMdm1OgN6SKw5djotxWve1gY2sEkLddp8VNig= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMuX+nMk264RGXVJZogcNTsgGlMneuWbDc3wbHi6z97kGiSNqUNU1aUnbIOZeKJ3bXboBgXivmxyCBjsmrDBM= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7fcd:: with SMTP id a196mr20574956wmd.180.1618113004421; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:50:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7850c18aba62e6150f227f3c1168974c@userve.net> <4d863f34-6df0-0b0a-f487-e492324e8752@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4d863f34-6df0-0b0a-f487-e492324e8752@freebsd.org> From: Jason Tubnor Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:49:54 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bhyve current windows status To: Peter Grehan Cc: Matt Churchyard , FreeBSD virtualization X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FHyYp3rC4z4kH7 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of jtubnor@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jtubnor@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.57 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-virtualization]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.57)[0.571]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[tubnor.net]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[209.85.128.48:from]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[209.85.128.48:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.128.48:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[jason@tubnor.net,jtubnor@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.128.48:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[jason@tubnor.net,jtubnor@gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34 X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:50:07 -0000 Hi Matt, Further to Peter's input below, I have added what we have in production for Windows Server 2016/2019 On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 16:30, Peter Grehan wrote: > > > > What are the current recommended devices/options for Windows (2019 > > server in my case) - especially with ZFS. Should I be specifying a > > 512/4096 sector/block size via bhyve and/or zfs? I assume nvme & > > virtio-net are the current best options but is there a preferred virtio > > driver version. Are any of the other virtio drivers of any use to be > > installed or just the network drivers? > > nvme - yes. > If using 12.2 or greater, NVMe across the board for guests. We will be switching over once we bring the fleet of appliances up to 13.0 upon release. If you are using 11.4, virtio-stor is your only option if you are after performance. While you can use ahci-hd, this is shockingly slow. About 2 versions ago of the VirtIO stack users of the virtio-stor drivers saw a regression in the driver take out whole virtual storage devices. Running the latest one as at 11 April 2021 should be fine for you. > I'll leave the sector/block size issues to others. I don't touch any > of those params but don't use enough Windows apps to make a qualified call. > > We set volblocksize=4k for all guests unless the guest is running MSSQL, in which case, volblocksize=512. We have observed significant storage consumption when using this smaller block size, likely due to the checksum overhead for small amounts of committed data. No need for other virtio drivers. For virtio-net, the recommendation > is to use the latest one. > > > Are there any known problems with applications like AD/Exchange? I know > > that SQL 2012 had massive storage overhead issues on ZFS due to 512 byte > > writes, but I'm not sure if that still affects newer versions or other > > applications? > > As above, I'll leave it up to others to chime in here. > Yes, that still applies. It is clear that you have discovered what we have (as also what I typed above for others to reference). I don't believe that has been fixed by Microsoft yet. I may get around to testing against newer versions over the next couple of months. Cheers, Jason.