What exactly do you intend to do?
If you want to compare using NFS directly in the guest via the network
VS using NFS in Dom0 and propagating a simple file on it to a guest via
the block layer, I'd strongly suggest you not do the latter. The
performance penalty of such a setup would be considerably more than 20%,
I'd say more like 40%. I haven't tried NFS but the penalty of using
simple files on GFS/SAN and exporting them to a DomU is in that range.
In PV DomUs, network I/O performance is pretty good.
Regards,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Grimme
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:55 AM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] guaranteed cpu power to VMs
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 10:25:09 Zavodsky, Daniel (GE Money) wrote:
> Dom0 is indeed faster in I/O operations than DomU. But if you are that
> concerned about I/O performance, put the NFS server on a standalone
> machine and not as a Dom0 which can compromise all DomUs running on it
> - especially if it runs something like a NFS server.
We already have an external filer. But still (or better again) discuss
about using NFS vs. iSCSI in Dom0 and then map the iSCSI Blockdevices in
Dom0 to DomU. Because of performance concerns. Although originally we
preferred NFS because of the ease of management of the whole concept.
But 20% difference in performance restarts that discussion all over
again.
> The percentages vary, if you set it up correctly, a DomU NFS server
> will be only ~10 percent slower than a native server.
Are there any relyable comments/documents on this topic?
-marc
--
Gruss / Regards,
Marc Grimme
http://www.atix.de/ http://www.open-sharedroot.org/
_______________________________________________
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
