That's interesting! I'm not expecting 5x improvement.
Is virtIO enabled in KVM guest? From information I got, may be wrong, Xen PV is a little bit faster than KVM virtIO But KVM with vHost + virtIO should be comparable with( might be better) Xen PV in terms of IO performance, since with vHost virtIO backend is in kernel, while Xen PV backend is in application, a lot of application/kernel context switches are eliminated. Anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: Kraig Amador [mailto:kama...@shopzilla.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:49 AM > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: best supported hypervisor > > One more opinion on the topic, > > We have been using KVM for a few months now but we are noticing some > severe disk io performance issues that we have been unable to tune our > way out of. We have tested Xen and seen 5x improvements on the same > hardware. I've spoken to other people who have had the same problem > when using local disk on KVM, so its something you should look out for > if disk performance is a concern. > > It is so drastic for us that we are considering rebuilding all of our > 50+ VM hosts on Xen. > > -- > Kraig Amador > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Alex Huang wrote: > > > Nux, > > > > I would say XenServer is the best supported hypervisor with KVM > rapidly catching up. This is mainly because I've known quite a few XS > production deployments. > > > > You'll find a lot of community members are on KVM and since it's been > open to apache, there's been a lot of contribution in KVM in terms of > bringing it up to date with the latest Ubuntu release etc and software > features. I think if you're looking for the latest advances in > technology, KVM is probably even earlier than XS. > > > > I don't think you'll go wrong with either hypervisor. > > > > As for SDN in your other thread, I will let Hugo speak to Nicira's > readiness. There's also a desire to bring OVS to production level in > the near future. > > > > --Alex > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:44 AM > > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org (mailto:cloudstack- > us...@incubator.apache.org) > > > Subject: Re: best supported hypervisor > > > > > > On 10.01.2013 03:50, Mathias Mullins wrote: > > > > Nux, > > > > > > > > What your use case? Are you trying a pay for hypervisor, or > > > > OpenSource? What are the top 5 features you are looking for? > > > > > > > > That makes a difference in the question. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > Hello Mathias, > > > > > > I prefer open source, kvm+libvirt whenever possible; I have worked > with > > > xen/xenserver before though and I could give it a try once again if > it > > > checks all the boxes. > > > > > > At the end of the day I want a solution that is reliable; to be > honest > > > I almost went with Openstack in production, but there're some > > > show-stoppers for me, like 1:1 NAT which simply does not work for > > > everyone no matter how excited they get about it. > > > > > > So what I'm hoping from cloudstack is: > > > - able to assign public IPs to VMs > > > - not trap me in the 4094 vlan limit (hence the need for gre or > smth > > > else) > > > - ipv6 (i understand this is coming in 4.1) > > > - decent upgradability, so next `yum update` won't make the wheels > fall > > > off > > > > > > Of course, now that I've been reading/watching stuff about > Cloudstack I > > > discovered all sorts of nice stuff that I want, like multiple types > of > > > primary storage etc. > > > > > > Any pointers? > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > > > Nux! > > > www.nux.ro (http://www.nux.ro) > > > > > > > > > >
