Same thing here. With the right setup, an all-in-one system based on
VMWare can be very solid and perform well.
I've documented my process here: http://serverfault.com/a/398579/13325
But I'm surprised at the negative comments about VMWare in this context. I
can't see how Virtual Box would run better.
On 11/7/12 9:45 AM, "Dan Swartzendruber" <dswa...@druber.com> wrote:
>On 11/7/2012 10:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
>> I formerly did exactly the same thing. Of course performance is
>>abysmal because you're booting a guest VM to share storage back to the
>>host where the actual VM's run. Not to mention, there's the startup
>>dependency, which is annoying to work around. But yes it works.
>I'm curious here. Your experience is 180 degrees opposite from mine. I
>run an all in one in production and I get native disk performance, and
>ESXi virtual disk I/O is faster than with a physical SAN/NAS for the NFS
>datastore, since the traffic never leaves the host (I get 3gb/sec or so
>usable thruput.) One essential (IMO) for this is passing an HBA into
>the SAN/NAS VM using vt-d technology. If you weren't doing this, I'm
>not surprised the performance sucked. If you were doing this, you were
>obviously doing something wrong. No offense, but quite a few people are
>doing exactly what I describe and it works just fine - there IS the
>startup dependency. but can live with that...
>>> 1: If you where given the same hardware, what would you do? (RAID card
>>> an extra EUR30 or so a month, which i don't really want to spend, but
>>> needs be...)
>> I have abandoned ESXi in favor of openindiana or solaris running as the
>>host, with virtualbox running the guests. I am SOOOO much happier now.
>>But it takes a higher level of expertise than running ESXi, but the
>>results are much better.
>in what respect? due to the 'abysmal performance'?
>zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss mailing list