From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 28 08:56:23 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 E9DAC290 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B341E794 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.12.30.100] (vpn01-01.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.213]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id t2S8reeh009038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:53:41 GMT Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:53:40 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Andrew Daugherity , freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poor performance with FreeBSD 10.1 under Xen 4.2 Message-ID: <1E351BDCCC425075995A562C@Karls-Mac-mini.local> In-Reply-To: <115BE54D-078A-4C45-8904-861DAB316C03@tamu.edu> References: <115BE54D-078A-4C45-8904-861DAB316C03@tamu.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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, 28 Mar 2015 08:56:24 -0000 --On 27 March 2015 23:13:23 +0000 Andrew Daugherity wrote: > Summary: FreeBSD 10.1/amd64 under Xen 4.2.5 is much slower than FreeBSD > 9.3 on the same environment, especially at fork() > > [snip] Hi, We've got a number of 9.3, 10.0 and growing number of 10.1 boxes running under XenServer 6.5 and OnApp (using Xen) here - and I've not noticed any issues with them. As you've carefully provided all the info - I'll give the same bench mark a run on some of our systems here next week - and post the results. Obviously it's not an 'apples for apples' comparison - XenServer 6.5, from memory uses Xen 4.4. I think the OnApp system we're using Xen 3.4 If nothing else it'd be good to know we really don't have an issue rather than one we've not noticed (otherwise this might turn into a '/me too' post :) -Karl