From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Tue Oct 30 09:21:26 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5824410DC6AF for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:21:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mx0.gentlemail.de (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAA7879633 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:21:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mh0.gentlemail.de (mh0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a135]) by mx0.gentlemail.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9U9LNIw083079; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:21:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from titan.inop.mo1.omnilan.net (s1.omnilan.de [217.91.127.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mh0.gentlemail.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC195AE4; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:21:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: bhyve win-guest benchmark comparing To: Dustin Marquess Cc: FreeBSD virtualization References: <9e7f4c01-6cd1-4045-1a5b-69c804b3881b@omnilan.de> From: Harry Schmalzbauer Organization: OmniLAN Message-ID: <34e1bd0e-9dd6-ac47-6247-40e345c1c749@omnilan.de> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:21:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:21:23 +0100 (CET) X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: mx0.gentlemail.de; Sender-ip: ; Sender-helo: mh0.gentlemail.de; ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:21:26 -0000 Am 30.10.2018 um 02:09 schrieb Dustin Marquess: > It would be interesting to test running it under Xen with FreeBSD as the > dom0. ACK, so do I think. This was on my to-check list, but had to be postponed until the next HV project legitimates another test setup ;-) Unfortunately I don't know much about Xen – next to nothing usage wise. The machine must go into production this weekend, so I replaced one of it's 2308(IT/IR) by a 2208(MegaRAID) and FreeBSD will run as guest, utilizing ESXi's pciPassthrough driver for the LynxPoint AHCI, the LSI2308 and the ql2464 (or 82576) – like I'm doing for almost a decade now. This setup provides by far the highest resource efficiency for such single socket systems (along with much higher single thread guest performance compared to linear priced dual socket servers – since sc-Xeons gold-6x you can achive the same guest single thread performance also with a dual socket system, but price is exponential...). My boss doesn't give me money and/or time to do all the nice stuff possible (I simply don't have it) ;-) SR-IOV should improve resource efficiency a lot for bhyve. Also curious how it competes in that scenario with ESXi! If I have accees to SR-IOV capabale hardware package I'll repeat the current test prior to the Xen comparison. Hopefully both will happen sooner than later. Perhaps somebody else has Xen test Seup running? I could provide the benchmark tools/configs – or even the image, since the OS-SSDs I used are not erased yet. But much more interesting was if somebody could describe/explain the results! It's not about optimization here, but I'll see what dtrace can tell me. Actually, the whole code is much too complex for me to understand why it is what it is and I won't be able to contribute :-( But I still have one bhyve setup running in my own office (where all important services are running on the host itself, in jails). Only one (win) guest produces minimal load and performance isn't of any importance. This is with stable/11, and I never saw "stuttering" RDP sessions, So my feeling is that virtio-net suffers from additional problems in 12... But I won't be able to compare, I just confirmed myself that bhyve:virtio-net in 12 isn't really usable in it's current state. I'm wondering if somebody else has 11 _and_ 12 running with byhve guests which use virtio-net. Can't imagine it's working for anybody, since even transfer rates via DSL lines lead to very high CPU load. -harry