vmware server or esxi? Eric
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Valtteri Kiviniemi < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
