From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 18 15:40:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8505B106564A; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hugo@barafranca.com) Received: from mail.barafranca.com (mail.barafranca.com [67.213.67.47]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564FB8FC0A; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [172.16.100.24]) by mail.barafranca.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A72F633; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at barafranca.com Received: from mail.barafranca.com ([172.16.100.24]) by localhost (mail.barafranca.com [172.16.100.24]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8+2g5+ojHhs5; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.100.2.100] (a94-132-1-34.cpe.netcabo.pt [94.132.1.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.barafranca.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BD255D7; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D5E92F3.6050709@barafranca.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:35 +0000 From: Hugo Silva User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091030) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <4D5E7CF7.8020209@barafranca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XenServer? X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:40:53 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > On 18 February 2011 15:06, Hugo Silva wrote: > >> Performance seems to be acceptable. There's a gotcha with PF, which someone >> else mentioned in this list recently. One has to disable tcp.tso to get >> decent throughput. >> >> Disabling it enabled a colleague who is currently in Africa to go from >> stalled..2KB/s sftp connections to 70KB/s. > > I hope that 70 kB/s is due to him being in Africa and not Xen+FreeBSD > performance :) I'm thinking of using this on a moderately loaded web > server (cca 5 GB/day traffic). Definitely - I can upload files (via sftp) to this VM at ~90% my home connection upstream, over a UDP VPN. Also, a few weeks ago while setting this up, on local LAN tests it managed to push 400-600mbit/s (iperf) without a lot of tuning. Back when I ran the iperf test PF wasn't enabled yet, so that might explain how it managed to get to that (altough I haven't tested the other poster's assertion that the performance problem only manifests with PF on) In my experience NetBSD tends to perform better under Xen but that could be because HVM+PV vs PV. Also a NetBSD PV domU is limited to a single CPU, while with FreeBSD HVM+PV you can use many vcpus. I haven't tested with high vcpu counts, but in this particular VM, it's been running happily with 2 VCPUs and no noticeable problems. No panics, no noticeable performance problems (after the tso fix) and certainly not the famous 'time went backwards' problem.