If you use a NAS/RAID solution, the performance difference with raw
partition vs. File on GFS is maybe 30%. The performance hit is not
critical, so if you do not need high-performance disks for the guest,
you can use it without any problem - as long as you do not use sparse
files that is.
Regards,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Haxby
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] file-based vs physical partition-based
vmperformance
Ed Brown wrote:
> Anyone have empirical performance observations about the advantages of
> either file-based or physical partition-based para-virt xen guests
> (RHEL5 host, RHEL5 guests)?
Yes.
file-based seems to be much slower. I admit that I have a slightly odd
setup here, but using file: for my virtual disks is much slower than
phys: (with an LVM partition). There shouldn't be that much
difference, not really, and I suspect I have a bug somewhere.
You're most likely to notice a difference because a partition
necessarily has all its blocks contiguous (well, with LVM it's not
necessary, but it generally is) whereas the blocks for a file,
especially a file created sparse, can be all over the place and give a
really dramatic performance reduction -- we're talking an order of
magnitude here in the worst case.
jch
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
