incubator-cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Xu <Xuefei...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: best supported hypervisor
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:36:46 GMT
That's interesting!

I'm not expecting 5x improvement.

Is virtIO enabled in KVM guest?

From information I got, may be wrong,
Xen PV is a little bit faster than KVM virtIO
But KVM with vHost + virtIO should be comparable with( might be better) Xen PV in terms of
IO performance, since with vHost virtIO backend is in kernel, while Xen PV backend is in application,
a lot of application/kernel context switches are eliminated.


Anthony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kraig Amador [mailto:kamador@shopzilla.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:49 AM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: best supported hypervisor
> 
> One more opinion on the topic,
> 
> We have been using KVM for a few months now but we are noticing some
> severe disk io performance issues that we have been unable to tune our
> way out of. We have tested Xen and seen 5x improvements on the same
> hardware. I've spoken to other people who have had the same problem
> when using local disk on KVM, so its something you should look out for
> if disk performance is a concern.
> 
> It is so drastic for us that we are considering rebuilding all of our
> 50+ VM hosts on Xen.
> 
> --
> Kraig Amador
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
> 
> > Nux,
> >
> > I would say XenServer is the best supported hypervisor with KVM
> rapidly catching up. This is mainly because I've known quite a few XS
> production deployments.
> >
> > You'll find a lot of community members are on KVM and since it's been
> open to apache, there's been a lot of contribution in KVM in terms of
> bringing it up to date with the latest Ubuntu release etc and software
> features. I think if you're looking for the latest advances in
> technology, KVM is probably even earlier than XS.
> >
> > I don't think you'll go wrong with either hypervisor.
> >
> > As for SDN in your other thread, I will let Hugo speak to Nicira's
> readiness. There's also a desire to bring OVS to production level in
> the near future.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nux! [mailto:nux@li.nux.ro]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:44 AM
> > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org (mailto:cloudstack-
> users@incubator.apache.org)
> > > Subject: Re: best supported hypervisor
> > >
> > > On 10.01.2013 03:50, Mathias Mullins wrote:
> > > > Nux,
> > > >
> > > > What your use case? Are you trying a pay for hypervisor, or
> > > > OpenSource? What are the top 5 features you are looking for?
> > > >
> > > > That makes a difference in the question.
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > >
> > > Hello Mathias,
> > >
> > > I prefer open source, kvm+libvirt whenever possible; I have worked
> with
> > > xen/xenserver before though and I could give it a try once again if
> it
> > > checks all the boxes.
> > >
> > > At the end of the day I want a solution that is reliable; to be
> honest
> > > I almost went with Openstack in production, but there're some
> > > show-stoppers for me, like 1:1 NAT which simply does not work for
> > > everyone no matter how excited they get about it.
> > >
> > > So what I'm hoping from cloudstack is:
> > > - able to assign public IPs to VMs
> > > - not trap me in the 4094 vlan limit (hence the need for gre or
> smth
> > > else)
> > > - ipv6 (i understand this is coming in 4.1)
> > > - decent upgradability, so next `yum update` won't make the wheels
> fall
> > > off
> > >
> > > Of course, now that I've been reading/watching stuff about
> Cloudstack I
> > > discovered all sorts of nice stuff that I want, like multiple types
> of
> > > primary storage etc.
> > >
> > > Any pointers?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> > >
> > > Nux!
> > > www.nux.ro (http://www.nux.ro)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message