Specifically on the performance of Windows VM's a few things you can try:
- Check the property "model" of your disks and make sure is "virtio"
If its IDE add an extra disk with virtio enabled, install virtio,
shutdown, make the change on the original disk and start again
vmadm get {UUID} | json disks
- Set "compression": "lz4" "block_size": 131072 (This one can
only be set at creation)
- Set zfs sync=disabled on the VM's HD ie: zfs set
sync=disabled zones/{UUID}-disk0
This is dangerous but a good way to determine if ZIL is the culprit
- Play with different versions of the KVM virtio drivers I got up to
8%~12% better performance than the ones from Joyent,
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/virt/virtio-win/direct-downloads/archive-virtio/
For security, backup and take a snapshot of the disk(s) before trying
any of this.
I would recommend to test performance with CrystalDisk mark from
inside the VM with every change (You could get some artificial results
due to caching etc.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1197.028 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1385.574 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 74.490 MB/s [ 18186.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 107.978 MB/s [ 26361.8 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 687.428 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 482.795 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 15.460 MB/s [ 3774.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 13.381 MB/s [ 3266.8 IOPS]
Test : 100 MiB [C: 22.9% (57.3/249.9 GiB)] (x1) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2015/10/21 14:55:31
OS : Windows Server 2008
zpool status
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zones ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039588CB2F5Ad0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598D2E102d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598D2E15Ed0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598E304BAd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-2 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598E304C2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598E318DEd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-3 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598E318F2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5000039598E319C6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:37 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> hi all. i know the basic question is a tired one, so feel free to ignore. i'm
> hoping someone can provide a recommendation based on real-world experience
> with smartos and this particular software stack: windows server 2008/2012
> with sybase ads, for a small office client/server application.
>
> i have a small customer (15 desktops) whose business is totally managed by a
> single client/server application. the latest version of the application has
> moved to using a sybase ads backend. the end-user software runs on a terminal
> server, as before, so i already have that covered. what i do not have covered
> is the hardware for the new sybase ads portion. the vendor requires windows
> 2008/2012 (standard or essentials) for their propriety
> installation/configuration of the sybase database and their related
> update/backup/management tools.
>
> i have smartos successfully running in several places with small services
> (samba3 domain controller, webserver, zimbra on linux vm, and a few windows
> vms running terminal services for applications). these work great, with disk
> performance being the only remotely questionable aspect. i do not have
> experience with large i/o workloads. there are a *lot* of conversations on
> the list with varying recommendations/suggestions for different situations.
> the most straight forward of the suggestions are "use the hardware joyent
> uses in their datacenters" and "test it yourself and go from there" ...
>
> this being a small customer (and myself just being a consultant) makes
> affording enterprise-grade hardware a challenge. so i'm hoping someone can
> recommend a known-working configuration that would allow a windows server kvm
> running sybase database to perform decently on smartos. the less expensive
> the better, of course.
>
> and if your recommendation is to skip smartos and go with a bare metal
> install, i'd like to hear that as well. it's not what i want to end up with,
> but that doesn't mean it's not the right answer. not everything works well
> virtualized, and with the kvm serial-disk-access issue i've read about i
> realize that might be the case here.
>
> thanks for your insight.
>
> -dewey
>
-------------------------------------------
smartos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
