Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:16:45 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com> To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Cc: "freebsd-xen@freebsd.org" <freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Xen 4.2 PV fails to boot -CURRENT PV domU Message-ID: <522DBC2D.8050701@citrix.com> In-Reply-To: <C28354B7-1453-416A-9984-296BA9C76A0D@netapp.com> References: <455A20DD-3985-45EC-AC51-A3AFD33180F1@netapp.com> <522DB6A2.5050205@citrix.com> <C28354B7-1453-416A-9984-296BA9C76A0D@netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/09/13 14:06, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > thanks, let me try your suggestion/patch. > > On Sep 9, 2013, at 13:53, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote: >> May I ask if there's anything that prevents you from switching to the >> PVHVM port? I wouldn't recommend using the i386 PV port. > > I was thinking that performance would be better, and resource requirements lower. If that's not the case, I can certainly go the PVHVM route. Performance will probably be better on most workloads with PVHVM if you have HAP (Intel's Extended Page Table or AMD's Nested Page Tables). And also, i386 PV port is limited to only one vcpu, while PVHVM will allow you to use as many vcpus as you want. PVHVM certainly has a higher resource requirement because it requires you to have a Qemu instance for each running VM, but that process is going to be idle most of the time (Qemu is mainly needed for booting). Roger.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?522DBC2D.8050701>