Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Xen: API

XCP 1.5 eta

 

 

Xen api RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


christian.lachance at ubisoft

Dec 13, 2011, 2:26 PM

Post #1 of 9 (1503 views)
Permalink
XCP 1.5 eta

Hi,

I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP 1.5 to be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been released in November and Final release in December. Is there any news on XCP 1.5 release date or RC1 download? If found the dates here: http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap

Have a nice day!

Christian.


Christian Lachance
Ubisoft Quebec Studio
Cloud Team
Lead Programmer
E-mail: christian.lachance [at] ubisoft<mailto:christian.lachance [at] ubisoft>
TÚl : (418) 524-1222 ext.2268


george.shuklin at gmail

Jan 5, 2012, 5:58 PM

Post #2 of 9 (1474 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

I have no idea about Citrix planes, but it looks like kronos is moving
forward.

On 14.12.2011 02:26, Christian Lachance wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP 1.5
> to be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been released
> in November and Final release in December. Is there any news on XCP
> 1.5 release date or RC1 download? If found the dates here:
> http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
>
>


scottz at wi

Jan 5, 2012, 9:58 PM

Post #3 of 9 (1461 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

I am curious for a little information and am wondering if anyone can
provide it.

I originally used the XCP ISO but had to ditch it because XCP wasn't
easily compatible with the software raid scenario that we used and since
have jumped over to KVM.

Personally I have never seen any hypervisor even come close to the
performance I have gotten from the Paravirtualization KVM solution on
Debian. It blows everything else I have used to date (all freeware,
ESXi and XCP 1.1) for small business. But I would like to know what am
I missing by going with para virtualizatoin like KVM over a hardware
thingy mbob (cant remember the actually name sorry, its the one where
the VM gets direct access to the hardware). I have windows server 2008
w/ 2 VCPU's and 1024mb of VRAM booting up in 10 seconds and shutting
completely down in 10 seconds. This is light years better than even
with dedicated software. The hyperthreading seems to be exactly as it
should, so for a small business (or even a larger business such as
UBISOFT) what benefits does one have using XCP over something like KVM.

I am simply asking because I don't understand why everyone on the planet
hasn't jumped onto KVM's.

Thank you and no fanboyism junk here, simply want to know for the sake
of having knowledge.

Scott


On 1/5/12 7:58 PM, George Shuklin wrote:
> I have no idea about Citrix planes, but it looks like kronos is moving
> forward.
>
> On 14.12.2011 02:26, Christian Lachance wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP 1.5
>> to be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been
>> released in November and Final release in December. Is there any
>> news on XCP 1.5 release date or RC1 download? If found the dates
>> here: http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xen-api mailing list
> xen-api [at] lists
> http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


george.shuklin at gmail

Jan 5, 2012, 11:44 PM

Post #4 of 9 (1452 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

We running cloud on XCP, I can say, that cpu performance is negligible
factor for current hypervisors state. The main problem starts around
network and disk performance, and balance of features/speed of them.

Our virtual machines boots within this time (10s and less) and I can't
say this is somehow critical question. More important is, f.e. footprint
on dom0 for network performance. I somehow unhappy of XCP performance -
I getting only 5-7GiB/s with about 100% load of one dom0 vCPUs. I've
prefer to see something around 8-9GiB/s with much lower load, but not
sure if any other system with bridge level aggregation and live
migration could perform better.

Same for disk IO - XCP do have relatively slow ISCSI, performing only
around 300-500MB/s (instead expected over 1GB/s), but, again, I saw
nothing better right now.

One problem with 'slow XCP' may be within HVM - which is lame mode for
lame windows-based appliances.

On 06.01.2012 09:58, Scott Zupek wrote:
> I am curious for a little information and am wondering if anyone can
> provide it.
>
> I originally used the XCP ISO but had to ditch it because XCP wasn't
> easily compatible with the software raid scenario that we used and
> since have jumped over to KVM.
>
> Personally I have never seen any hypervisor even come close to the
> performance I have gotten from the Paravirtualization KVM solution on
> Debian. It blows everything else I have used to date (all freeware,
> ESXi and XCP 1.1) for small business. But I would like to know what
> am I missing by going with para virtualizatoin like KVM over a
> hardware thingy mbob (cant remember the actually name sorry, its the
> one where the VM gets direct access to the hardware). I have windows
> server 2008 w/ 2 VCPU's and 1024mb of VRAM booting up in 10 seconds
> and shutting completely down in 10 seconds. This is light years
> better than even with dedicated software. The hyperthreading seems to
> be exactly as it should, so for a small business (or even a larger
> business such as UBISOFT) what benefits does one have using XCP over
> something like KVM.
>
> I am simply asking because I don't understand why everyone on the
> planet hasn't jumped onto KVM's.
>
> Thank you and no fanboyism junk here, simply want to know for the sake
> of having knowledge.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 1/5/12 7:58 PM, George Shuklin wrote:
>> I have no idea about Citrix planes, but it looks like kronos is
>> moving forward.
>>
>> On 14.12.2011 02:26, Christian Lachance wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP
>>> 1.5 to be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been
>>> released in November and Final release in December. Is there any
>>> news on XCP 1.5 release date or RC1 download? If found the dates
>>> here: http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xen-api mailing list
>> xen-api [at] lists
>> http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xen-api mailing list
> xen-api [at] lists
> http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


konrad.wilk at oracle

Jan 6, 2012, 6:52 AM

Post #5 of 9 (1494 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:58:34PM -0600, Scott Zupek wrote:
> I am curious for a little information and am wondering if anyone can
> provide it.
>
> I originally used the XCP ISO but had to ditch it because XCP wasn't
> easily compatible with the software raid scenario that we used and
> since have jumped over to KVM.
>
> Personally I have never seen any hypervisor even come close to the
> performance I have gotten from the Paravirtualization KVM solution

PV KVM? You mean KVM with virtio drivers?

Usually PV is associated with Xen not with KVM?

> on Debian. It blows everything else I have used to date (all
> freeware, ESXi and XCP 1.1) for small business. But I would like to
> know what am I missing by going with para virtualizatoin like KVM
> over a hardware thingy mbob (cant remember the actually name sorry,
> its the one where the VM gets direct access to the hardware). I have

PCI passthrough? VT-d?

> windows server 2008 w/ 2 VCPU's and 1024mb of VRAM booting up in 10
> seconds and shutting completely down in 10 seconds. This is light
> years better than even with dedicated software. The hyperthreading
> seems to be exactly as it should, so for a small business (or even a
> larger business such as UBISOFT) what benefits does one have using
> XCP over something like KVM.
>
> I am simply asking because I don't understand why everyone on the
> planet hasn't jumped onto KVM's.

Well, the reason you said you switched to KVM was b/c of RAID, not
b/c of performance. So it seems to me you could achieve your goal
by installing Fedora Core 16 and running 'yum install xen' and would
have Xen on it (which is what XCP is using).

Or in your case you are running Debian, so 'apt-get install xen'

>
> Thank you and no fanboyism junk here, simply want to know for the
> sake of having knowledge.

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api [at] lists
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


konrad.wilk at oracle

Jan 6, 2012, 6:54 AM

Post #6 of 9 (1451 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 11:44:25AM +0400, George Shuklin wrote:
> We running cloud on XCP, I can say, that cpu performance is
> negligible factor for current hypervisors state. The main problem
> starts around network and disk performance, and balance of
> features/speed of them.
>
> Our virtual machines boots within this time (10s and less) and I
> can't say this is somehow critical question. More important is, f.e.
> footprint on dom0 for network performance. I somehow unhappy of XCP
> performance - I getting only 5-7GiB/s with about 100% load of one
> dom0 vCPUs. I've prefer to see something around 8-9GiB/s with much

Does it change if you make dom0 have more vCPUs?
> lower load, but not sure if any other system with bridge level
> aggregation and live migration could perform better.
>
> Same for disk IO - XCP do have relatively slow ISCSI, performing
> only around 300-500MB/s (instead expected over 1GB/s), but, again, I
> saw nothing better right now.

1GB being what you saw on baremetal? Or is that what your line speed is?

>
> One problem with 'slow XCP' may be within HVM - which is lame mode
> for lame windows-based appliances.

Are you using the PV drivers in your HVM guest?

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api [at] lists
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


george.shuklin at gmail

Jan 6, 2012, 5:12 PM

Post #7 of 9 (1460 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

On 06.01.2012 18:54, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> We running cloud on XCP, I can say, that cpu performance is
>> negligible factor for current hypervisors state. The main problem
>> starts around network and disk performance, and balance of
>> features/speed of them.
>>
>> Our virtual machines boots within this time (10s and less) and I
>> can't say this is somehow critical question. More important is, f.e.
>> footprint on dom0 for network performance. I somehow unhappy of XCP
>> performance - I getting only 5-7GiB/s with about 100% load of one
>> dom0 vCPUs. I've prefer to see something around 8-9GiB/s with much
> Does it change if you make dom0 have more vCPUs?

At certain level, yes. But linear performance (per VM) will been kept in
performance of single CPU...

>> lower load, but not sure if any other system with bridge level
>> aggregation and live migration could perform better.
>>
>> Same for disk IO - XCP do have relatively slow ISCSI, performing
>> only around 300-500MB/s (instead expected over 1GB/s), but, again, I
>> saw nothing better right now.
> 1GB being what you saw on baremetal? Or is that what your line speed is?

Baremetall shows something like 1.2-1.5GiB/s (bunch of disks in huge raid).
>> One problem with 'slow XCP' may be within HVM - which is lame mode
>> for lame windows-based appliances.
> Are you using the PV drivers in your HVM guest?
I don't use windows and don't use HVM at all. :)

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api [at] lists
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


pasik at iki

Jan 9, 2012, 1:18 AM

Post #8 of 9 (1472 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:58:34PM -0600, Scott Zupek wrote:
> I am curious for a little information and am wondering if anyone can
> provide it.
>
> I originally used the XCP ISO but had to ditch it because XCP wasn't
> easily compatible with the software raid scenario that we used and since
> have jumped over to KVM.
>
> Personally I have never seen any hypervisor even come close to the
> performance I have gotten from the Paravirtualization KVM solution on
> Debian.
>

KVM does NOT do Paravirtualization. KVM uses "full virtualization", meaning "full emulation".
KVM has PV *drivers* available though.

Xen does both Paravirtualization and Full virtualization.
Xen PV VMs automatically use PV drivers, and if using Xen Full Virtualization (HVM) instead,
then you can install additional Xen PV drivers for the HVM VMs, giving you Xenm PVHVM VMs.



> It blows everything else I have used to date (all freeware, ESXi
> and XCP 1.1) for small business. But I would like to know what am I
> missing by going with para virtualizatoin like KVM over a hardware thingy
> mbob (cant remember the actually name sorry, its the one where the VM gets
> direct access to the hardware).

For CPU bound benchmarks there shouldn't be big differences between hypervisors,
since well, it's mostly the CPU that matters. If you're seeing big differences
in CPU bound benchmarks between Xen, KVM, VMware, or anything else,
you probably have something wrong in your benchmark.

For IO (disk/net) bound benchmarks Xen beats KVM in most benchmarks.
(See XenSummit 2011 North America slides for more information/details).

With Xen there are different virtualization types,
so remember to benchmark all of them:

- Xen Paravirtualization (PV domUs).
- Xen Full Virtualization (HVM).
- Xen Full Virtualization with PV drivers (PVHVM).


> I have windows server 2008 w/ 2 VCPU's and
> 1024mb of VRAM booting up in 10 seconds and shutting completely down in 10
> seconds. This is light years better than even with dedicated software.
> The hyperthreading seems to be exactly as it should, so for a small
> business (or even a larger business such as UBISOFT) what benefits does
> one have using XCP over something like KVM.
>

10 seconds and faster than on baremetal. That should ring alarm bells...
sounds like you're heavily caching disk IO on the host, risking VM disk corruption
in the case of hardware/linux/kvm/windows crash or power failure.. ?

When Xen and KVM are configured in a matching way Xen should be as fast,
and often faster than KVM.


> I am simply asking because I don't understand why everyone on the planet
> hasn't jumped onto KVM's.
>

KVM is good for some things, and Xen is good for some other things.
For example security/isolation model of Xen is more advanced compared to KVM.


> Thank you and no fanboyism junk here, simply want to know for the sake of
> having knowledge.
>
> Scott


-- Pasi



>
> On 1/5/12 7:58 PM, George Shuklin wrote:
>
> I have no idea about Citrix planes, but it looks like kronos is moving
> forward.
>
> On 14.12.2011 02:26, Christian Lachance wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP 1.5
> to be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been released
> in November and Final release in December. Is there any news on XCP
> 1.5 release date or RC1 download? If found the dates here:
> [1]http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xen-api mailing list
> [2]xen-api [at] lists
> [3]http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
> 2. mailto:xen-api [at] lists
> 3. http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api

> _______________________________________________
> xen-api mailing list
> xen-api [at] lists
> http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api [at] lists
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api


mike.mcclurg at citrix

Jan 9, 2012, 1:32 AM

Post #9 of 9 (1498 views)
Permalink
Re: XCP 1.5 eta [In reply to]

On 13/12/11 22:26, Christian Lachance wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working in the Ubisoft Cloud team and we are waiting for XCP 1.5 to
> be released. Looking at the roadmap, RC1 should have been released in
> November and Final release in December. Is there any news on XCP 1.5
> release date or RC1 download? If found the dates here:
> http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XCP_Roadmap
>

Hi Christian,

As George Shuklin said in another email, the XCP team has delayed the
release of XCP 1.5 so that we could work on Project Kronos. Kronos is
just about wrapped up, so we're going back to working on XCP proper now.

I have no promises for you, but I do plan on working on producing an XCP
1.5 beta this week. Hopefully we'll have something soon.

Ironically, we may also be able to produce an XCP 1.6 alpha in a few
weeks, since one of the other things we've been doing instead of XCP 1.5
has been fixing up the XenServer build system so that XCP gets built
automatically, instead of being a manual process. XCP 1.6 is currently
building right now, it's just not code-complete enough (or tested
enough) to really release an alpha yet.

Mike

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api [at] lists
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api

Xen api RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.