From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Fri Feb 17 11:29:41 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2270CE2F81 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:29:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from smtp209.alice.it (smtp209.alice.it [82.57.200.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903491EC9 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:29:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.ventu (82.52.25.226) by smtp209.alice.it (8.6.060.28) (authenticated as acanedi@alice.it) id 588F429D0322E61F; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:29:31 +0100 Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v1HBTRT3095704; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:29:30 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) X-Authentication-Warning: soth.ventu: Host alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18] claimed to be alamar.ventu Subject: Re: Status of bhyve To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org, Harry Schmalzbauer References: <607fc3c1-5546-dbce-488b-983163ff1e98@netfence.it> From: Andrea Venturoli Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:29:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <607fc3c1-5546-dbce-488b-983163ff1e98@netfence.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:29:42 -0000 On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:46:34 +0100, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote: > Hello, > it depends on the features you need. Not much, really. Running SQL Server Express (for now) with decent performance. > · virtio-blk and jumbo frames (e1000 works with jumbo frames but > performance is not comparaable with ESXi e1000(e)) > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215737 I don't think the underlying network equipment will support Jumbo Frames :( > · PCI-Passthru is very picky. If you have a card with BAR memorysize < | > != pagesize, byhve(4) won't accept it. > > · device(9) as block storage backend (virtio-blk, ahci-hd) doesn't work > if you use any PCI-passthru device > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215740 I don't think I'd need PCI passthrough (I'm fine with a disk and a network card). > · virtio-blk isn't virtio-win (Windows driver) compatible, guest will crash! > > · virtio-net doesn't work with latest Windows drivers, which is not a > bhyve(4) problem as far as I can tell. Version 0.1.118 works, newer ones > are known to have problems on other hypervisors too. Good to know. > · See if_bridge(4) for some limitations (all members need to have > exactly the same MTU, uplink gets checksum offloading disabled). > Generally, soft-switching capabilities ar not comparable with those of > ESXi, especially not the performace (outside netmap world). This is a good point. :( > Other than that, it's rock solid for me > ... >> How well does it run Windows? >> Would I better run W7 instead of W10 (or the other way round)? Fine. >> Should I use a dedicated disk (or disk mirror) for better speed? >> Or should I use a dedicated partition on the host's disk/disk mirror? >> Will a ZFS volume perform as good as a partition? > > ZVOL is the best option offering great performance (depending on your > pool setup of yourse) as long as there is the PCI-passthru bug mentioned > above. Thanks again. bye av.