From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 4 15:12:39 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3B25FCE for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ultra-secure.de (mail.ultra-secure.de [88.198.178.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A0EB2AA for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 15:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 36480 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2015 15:12:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.200?) (rainer@ultra-secure.de@217.71.83.52) by mail.ultra-secure.de with ESMTPA; 4 Apr 2015 15:12:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: Poor performance with FreeBSD 10.1 under Xen 4.2 From: Rainer Duffner In-Reply-To: <5CC2ABAB-AE46-4C9F-A610-D4EAD735ECA0@tamu.edu> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 17:12:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <115BE54D-078A-4C45-8904-861DAB316C03@tamu.edu> <5516A998.10206@citrix.com> <57429F3F-8CC9-4C4F-86DF-3E63C5853B01@tamu.edu> <5CC2ABAB-AE46-4C9F-A610-D4EAD735ECA0@tamu.edu> To: Andrew Daugherity X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Cc: "freebsd-xen@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 15:12:40 -0000 > Am 02.04.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Andrew Daugherity = : >=20 > On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:52 PM, Andrew Daugherity = wrote: >> On Mar 28, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Roger Pau Monn=E9 = wrote: >>> I'm Ccing feld because IIRC he found something similar on one of his >>> boxes, that also had VTx but no EPT (just like yours). Would it be >>> possible for you to try the same set of tests on a different = hardware? >>=20 >> I think you're on to something. I copied this FreeBSD 10.1 VM to a = system running the same version of Xen (and same SLES in the Dom0), but = with an Opteron 2360SE CPU (which has both SVM and NPT), and it is = *much* faster (and feels more responsive too): >> [snip] >>> Also, if even FreeBSD 10.1 compiled without XENHVM shows this issue = it >>> means there's something in the generic code that doesn't work well = when >>> running virtualized on this specific hardware, but I'm afraid = figuring >>> it out is not trivial. One place to start would be asking on >>> freebsd-hackers and freebsd-virt. >>=20 >> I suppose this performance delta with presence of EPT/NPT vs. lack = thereof means it's time to take it to those lists? My next step will be = to test 10.1 under KVM on the Xeon to confirm whether it's a Xen issue = or strictly EPT. >=20 > It seems I spoke too soon. I booted into the "default" (non-Xen) = Linux kernel on the Xeon E5420 box and launched the same FreeBSD 10.1 VM = under KVM, and performance is much, much better: >=20 Hi, I have access to Xen at work (and will continue to do so - we intend to = use and offer FreeBSD in our =84Cloud=93-platform (Apache CloudStack). AFAIK, we have no KVM. Just Xen. Unfortunately, I=92ve got little time currently, but I will try to get a = VM where I can run this during the next week. I will also collect the hardware-details of the host (AFAIK, we=92ve got = HP DL380G8 servers with lots of RAM and two CPUs). Rainer