<asshole mode> Unless you were/are using 50% normal, optimal bandwidth and all of a sudden you lose 75% of that. That would mean you would be 25% over maximum capacity for the VM compared to the real hardware.
Theory flawed. </asshole mode> Dave M3PH Williams -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guy Watkins Sent: 28 August 2009 03:06 To: 'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list' Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] srcds virtualized The game servers don't do much disk I/O, so disks running at 25% normal speed is not really an issue. You might notice with a really busy database. But if you are seeing slower disk performance you might also see slower network, RAM and CPU performance. But again, if you are not maxing these out, you would not notice. } -----Original Message----- } From: [email protected] [mailto:hlds_linux- } [email protected]] On Behalf Of Valtteri Kiviniemi } Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:58 PM } To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list } Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] srcds virtualized } } Hi, } } Disk I/O is the most important thing on virtualized environments. You } have multiple operating systems using the same storage so its important } that your storage is fast. If you have slow storage, then your virtual } servers are "sticky" and slow because of the slow disk speed. You might } have fast cpu and a lots of ram, but you have to remember that you have } multiple operating systems with different workloads using the same } storage and that will need to be fast if you want to run a reasonable } ammount of virtualservers. Ofc. im not directly speaking on srcds's } hosting, so it might mabe a little offtopic, but im just making out the } differences between VMWare and Xen. } } I had almos 200MB/s of raw disk troughput with Xen and only 60MB/s with } VMWare measured from inside the VPS. That is a huge difference. That was } tested via Areca raid array, but I also tested the disk speed with no } raid, only single sata-disk and it was still better on Xen. } } - Valtteri Kiviniemi } } Midnight kirjoitti: } > Disk I/O is not the main factor for running game servers anyway, so } > that's not really a reason to choose one option over the other in this } case. } > } > } > } > Valtteri Kiviniemi 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 _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
