Hi, You are correct. But I'm just saying my opinion here, and I think that Xen is better.
VMWare ESXi is maybe a bit more user friendly than XenServer 5.5, but I don't still understand why ESXi is so much slower. I'am using both of them because my company sell's virtual servers and some customers want VMWare ones. I have identical hardware on all machines but im still seeing 30-40% more performance on Xen virtual servers than on VMWare. Dont know why, but disk i/o is way better on Xen than VMWare. - Valtteri Kiviniemi Eric Greer kirjoitti: > If everyone wants to get technical with all of this nonsense... you can run > srcds just fine on a VPS - as long as there is enough power. > Xen Quite simply adds another layer hardware layer that data must pass > through. However, we're talking nanoseconds here people. Not like another > hop on your way to chicago - another *virtual* device on the way to the > hardware and back. It's like nothing. VMWare ESXi adds a few more layers > as it passes through more virtual devices... but it still does not matter. > > A VM can be provisioned with plenty enough power to do any source server > just fine. You just have to give it plenty of dedicated resources. > > I feel like people start taking emotions into computing at some point. > There aren't any - its all benchmarks and numbers. If the system can CPU > bench some number has memory available and bandwidth... it can run the > server - simple as that. > > A VPS is generally considered 'weaker' because it can share resources with > other VMs - but it doesn't have to. If for some reason you wanted to give > root shell access to a game server customer, you could VM them. Yes, theres > a good 100Mb of memory overhead for the hypervisor, but it can be worth it. > > Eric > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Valtteri Kiviniemi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> You should probably read the facts before posting. Ofc. its not exactly >> the same, but if you know nothing about Xen you would know that the >> performance difference between (for example 2.6.18-xen and 2.6.18 >> kernels) are so small, that you cant even notice it. >> >> Maybe with ESXi you have greater performance difference compared to >> bare-metl but not with xen. >> >> - Valtteri Kiviniemi >> >> Kveri kirjoitti: >>> believe me, if you have paravirtualized enviroment you don't have >>> equal performance than on bare-metal. Paravirtualization adds another >>> layer, so does overhead. Maybe performance in CSS, but I doubt about it. >>> >>> I'm using full VT on 4x quad core xeons with 16gb ram and providing >>> 1000fps 1.6 servers (yes, stable 1000fps, kernel self-pached with RT >>> and some HZ tweaks), CSS servers with 100 ticrate and and some tf2 >>> servers without any problems. >>> >>> Kveri >>> >>> On 25.8.2009, at 20:52, Valtteri Kiviniemi wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We are running multiple TF2 servers with Xen 3.4.1 paravirtualized. >>>> Performance is exactly the same as bare-metal, maybe even better. Only >>>> downside is that you need xen-patched kernel so to get most stable and >>>> working environment you have to use the default 2.6.18.8-xen kernel. >>>> Ofc. you can compile a 1000hz domU kernel like we have. >>>> >>>> There is also pv_ops kernels which are included in the xen-unstable >>>> tree. They are the normal kernel.org kernel with patches that make it >>>> suitable for Xen hypervisor. >>>> >>>> In my opinion Xen is the best solution for gameserver virtualization >>>> because it is the fastest. ESXi virtuals are not paravirtualized so >>>> they >>>> have slower disk i/o and network performance. They also use more >>>> resources. >>>> >>>> If you want same performance as bare-metal you need paravirtualized >>>> guest operating systems and Xen is the best solution for that. >>>> >>>> We have a physical 2 x 2.5GHz Quad-core Xeon machine with 16 GB ram >>>> and >>>> a ARECA ARC-1220 raid controller with RAID10 array. >>>> >>>> We are also running many other virtuals on the same machine without >>>> them >>>> affecting the gameserver virtual performance. >>>> >>>> With Xen you can for example assign 4 physical cores to the gameserver >>>> virtual and use the other 4 for other virtuals. >>>> >>>> - Valtteri Kiviniemi >>>> >>>> Daniel Worley kirjoitti: >>>>> I don't have exact numbers, but I've run srcds both natively and >>>>> under ESXi >>>>> on a PowerEdge server. Under both I was able to run multiple >>>>> instances, no >>>>> issues. I saw no difference in performance playing on the servers, >>>>> but once >>>>> again I don't have numbers to back it up. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Claudio Beretta < >> [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> HiI'd like to know your experiences with running srcds in a >>>>>> virtualized >>>>>> environment. Searching mail-archive for past discussions about >>>>>> this subject >>>>>> didn't provide a reliable conclusion to this topic. >>>>>> From what i understand, only hypervisors such as ESXi, XEN (and >>>>>> maybe >>>>>> Hyper-V) are suitable to be used for game servers because they >>>>>> should be >>>>>> the >>>>>> ones that introduce the lower overhead and response delay. >>>>>> Having a minor performance loss is fine, as long as no noticeable >>>>>> jitter is >>>>>> introduced or ping is increased.Has anyone had a chance to test >>>>>> these >>>>>> products and compare srcds performance on the same machine when >>>>>> virtualized >>>>>> and when running on the bare metal? >>>>>> Provided that the machine can handle it, do you know if it is >>>>>> possible to >>>>>> virtualize tickrate100, 1000fps CSS servers? Not that i want to do >>>>>> that, >>>>>> but >>>>>> if it can be done.. anything can be done :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> best regards, >>>>>> Claudio >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>>>> archives, >>>>>> please visit: >>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>>> archives, please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>> archives, please visit: >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >> > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
