nvme is faster than virtio-blk? It seems strange that a paravirtualized driver would be slower. Is that because of the regression you mention?
— RHC. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 11 April 2021 04:49, Jason Tubnor <ja...@tubnor.net> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Further to Peter's input below, I have added what we have in production for > Windows Server 2016/2019 > > On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 16:30, Peter Grehan gre...@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 virtio > > > 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 call. > > We set volblocksize=4k for all guests unless the guest is running MSSQL, in > which case, volblocksize=512. We have observed significant storage > consumption when using this smaller block size, likely due to the checksum > 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 know > > > that SQL 2012 had massive storage overhead issues on ZFS due to 512 byte > > > writes, but I'm not sure if that still affects newer versions or other > > > 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 have > (as also what I typed above for others to reference). I don't believe that > has been fixed by Microsoft yet. I may get around to testing against newer > 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
