From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Peter Bier" Subject: Re: Welcome to the "Xen-devel" mailing list Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:35:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1622716546@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a try to post a follow-up to the thread "poor domU VBD performance" in the new newsgroup. I do not know if this is th adequate way to do so, but I did not find any information on how to do so otherwise. This is a response to "Ian Pratt": Yes I do the performance testing using dd. It's only a simple "benchmark" but its results seem to indicate a fundamental issue. I did the tests with the same partitions from DOM0 just as DomU. I used both disks and Dom0 achieved in all experiments 2.5 times the transfer rate of DomU. I do not know the chipset of my IDE controller on my computer at home, while I know that in the office it pas a Promise raid controller ( I am neither at home nor in the office momentarily ) . I am sure, that the system was idle during all test ( meaning that there was only the standard system running with no busy jobs and no user program consuming CPU or IO resources. I am very interested about Xen, but I need to fiy that problem. If there is any "checklist" how to configure XEN efficiently, I might be able to fix the problem myself Thanks Peter Bier ______________________________________________________________ Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193