From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sun Apr 11 10:08:00 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7224A5E78D9 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:08:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crowston@protonmail.com) Received: from mail1.protonmail.ch (mail1.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "protonmail.com", Issuer "SwissSign Server Gold CA 2014 - G22" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FJ6xq2Tmzz3GmT for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:07:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crowston@protonmail.com) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:07:51 +0000 To: Jason Tubnor From: Robert Crowston Cc: Peter Grehan , Matt Churchyard , FreeBSD virtualization Reply-To: Robert Crowston Subject: Re: bhyve current windows status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <7850c18aba62e6150f227f3c1168974c@userve.net> <4d863f34-6df0-0b0a-f487-e492324e8752@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on mailout.protonmail.ch X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FJ6xq2Tmzz3GmT X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.07 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[crowston@protonmail.com]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[protonmail.com]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:185.70.40.0/24]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[protonmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[protonmail.com,quarantine]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.968]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[protonmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:62371, ipnet:185.70.40.0/24, country:CH]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[185.70.40.18:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[protonmail.com:s=protonmail]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FREEMAIL_REPLYTO(0.00)[protonmail.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[185.70.40.18:from]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-virtualization] X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 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: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:08:00 -0000 nvme is faster than virtio-blk? It seems strange that a paravirtualized dri= ver would be slower. Is that because of the regression you mention? =E2=80=94 RHC. =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Sunday, 11 April 2021 04:49, Jason Tubnor wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Further to Peter's input below, I have added what we have in production f= or > Windows Server 2016/2019 > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 16:30, Peter Grehan grehan@freebsd.org wrote: > > > > What are the current recommended devices/options for Windows (2019 > > > server in my case) - especially with ZFS. Should I be specifying a > > > 512/4096 sector/block size via bhyve and/or zfs? I assume nvme & > > > virtio-net are the current best options but is there a preferred virt= io > > > driver version. Are any of the other virtio drivers of any use to be > > > installed or just the network drivers? > > > > nvme - yes. > > If using 12.2 or greater, NVMe across the board for guests. We will be > switching over once we bring the fleet of appliances up to 13.0 upon > release. > > If you are using 11.4, virtio-stor is your only option if you are after > performance. While you can use ahci-hd, this is shockingly slow. About 2 > versions ago of the VirtIO stack users of the virtio-stor drivers saw a > regression in the driver take out whole virtual storage devices. Running > the latest one as at 11 April 2021 should be fine for you. > > > I'll leave the sector/block size issues to others. I don't touch any > > of those params but don't use enough Windows apps to make a qualified c= all. > > We set volblocksize=3D4k for all guests unless the guest is running MSSQL= , in > which case, volblocksize=3D512. We have observed significant storage > consumption when using this smaller block size, likely due to the checksu= m > overhead for small amounts of committed data. > > No need for other virtio drivers. For virtio-net, the recommendation > > > is to use the latest one. > > > > > Are there any known problems with applications like AD/Exchange? I kn= ow > > > that SQL 2012 had massive storage overhead issues on ZFS due to 512 b= yte > > > writes, but I'm not sure if that still affects newer versions or othe= r > > > applications? > > > > As above, I'll leave it up to others to chime in here. > > Yes, that still applies. It is clear that you have discovered what we hav= e > (as also what I typed above for others to reference). I don't believe tha= t > has been fixed by Microsoft yet. I may get around to testing against newe= r > versions over the next couple of months. > > Cheers, > > Jason. > > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@free= bsd.org"