Strange! I hadn't heard of or experienced any disk problems with ESXi yet. Maybe I just haven't loaded it down when I'm using it enough to notice.
Eric On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Valtteri Kiviniemi < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > ESXi 3.5, havent tested the 4.0 because Areca only has a beta driver for > it. > > - Valtteri Kiviniemi > > Eric Greer kirjoitti: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
