Disk I/O is not the main factor for running game servers anyway, so that's not really a reason to choose one option over the other in this case.
Valtteri Kiviniemi wrote: > Hi, > > You are correct. But I'm just saying my opinion here, and I think that > Xen is better. > > VMWare ESXi is maybe a bit more user friendly than XenServer 5.5, but I > don't still understand why ESXi is so much slower. I'am using both of > them because my company sell's virtual servers and some customers want > VMWare ones. > > I have identical hardware on all machines but im still seeing 30-40% > more performance on Xen virtual servers than on VMWare. Dont know why, > but disk i/o is way better on Xen than VMWare. > > - Valtteri Kiviniemi > > Eric Greer kirjoitti: > >> If everyone wants to get technical with all of this nonsense... you can run >> srcds just fine on a VPS - as long as there is enough power. >> Xen Quite simply adds another layer hardware layer that data must pass >> through. However, we're talking nanoseconds here people. Not like another >> hop on your way to chicago - another *virtual* device on the way to the >> hardware and back. It's like nothing. VMWare ESXi adds a few more layers >> as it passes through more virtual devices... but it still does not matter. >> >> A VM can be provisioned with plenty enough power to do any source server >> just fine. You just have to give it plenty of dedicated resources. >> >> I feel like people start taking emotions into computing at some point. >> There aren't any - its all benchmarks and numbers. If the system can CPU >> bench some number has memory available and bandwidth... it can run the >> server - simple as that. >> >> A VPS is generally considered 'weaker' because it can share resources with >> other VMs - but it doesn't have to. If for some reason you wanted to give >> root shell access to a game server customer, you could VM them. Yes, theres >> a good 100Mb of memory overhead for the hypervisor, but it can be worth it. >> >> Eric >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Valtteri Kiviniemi < >> valtteri.kivini...@dataproof.fi> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> You should probably read the facts before posting. Ofc. its not exactly >>> the same, but if you know nothing about Xen you would know that the >>> performance difference between (for example 2.6.18-xen and 2.6.18 >>> kernels) are so small, that you cant even notice it. >>> >>> Maybe with ESXi you have greater performance difference compared to >>> bare-metl but not with xen. >>> >>> - Valtteri Kiviniemi >>> >>> Kveri kirjoitti: >>> >>>> believe me, if you have paravirtualized enviroment you don't have >>>> equal performance than on bare-metal. Paravirtualization adds another >>>> layer, so does overhead. Maybe performance in CSS, but I doubt about it. >>>> >>>> I'm using full VT on 4x quad core xeons with 16gb ram and providing >>>> 1000fps 1.6 servers (yes, stable 1000fps, kernel self-pached with RT >>>> and some HZ tweaks), CSS servers with 100 ticrate and and some tf2 >>>> servers without any problems. >>>> >>>> Kveri >>>> >>>> On 25.8.2009, at 20:52, Valtteri Kiviniemi wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> We are running multiple TF2 servers with Xen 3.4.1 paravirtualized. >>>>> Performance is exactly the same as bare-metal, maybe even better. Only >>>>> downside is that you need xen-patched kernel so to get most stable and >>>>> working environment you have to use the default 2.6.18.8-xen kernel. >>>>> Ofc. you can compile a 1000hz domU kernel like we have. >>>>> >>>>> There is also pv_ops kernels which are included in the xen-unstable >>>>> tree. They are the normal kernel.org kernel with patches that make it >>>>> suitable for Xen hypervisor. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion Xen is the best solution for gameserver virtualization >>>>> because it is the fastest. ESXi virtuals are not paravirtualized so >>>>> they >>>>> have slower disk i/o and network performance. They also use more >>>>> resources. >>>>> >>>>> If you want same performance as bare-metal you need paravirtualized >>>>> guest operating systems and Xen is the best solution for that. >>>>> >>>>> We have a physical 2 x 2.5GHz Quad-core Xeon machine with 16 GB ram >>>>> and >>>>> a ARECA ARC-1220 raid controller with RAID10 array. >>>>> >>>>> We are also running many other virtuals on the same machine without >>>>> them >>>>> affecting the gameserver virtual performance. >>>>> >>>>> With Xen you can for example assign 4 physical cores to the gameserver >>>>> virtual and use the other 4 for other virtuals. >>>>> >>>>> - Valtteri Kiviniemi >>>>> >>>>> Daniel Worley kirjoitti: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't have exact numbers, but I've run srcds both natively and >>>>>> under ESXi >>>>>> on a PowerEdge server. Under both I was able to run multiple >>>>>> instances, no >>>>>> issues. I saw no difference in performance playing on the servers, >>>>>> but once >>>>>> again I don't have numbers to back it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Claudio Beretta < >>>>>> >>> beretta.clau...@gmail.com >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> HiI'd like to know your experiences with running srcds in a >>>>>>> virtualized >>>>>>> environment. Searching mail-archive for past discussions about >>>>>>> this subject >>>>>>> didn't provide a reliable conclusion to this topic. >>>>>>> From what i understand, only hypervisors such as ESXi, XEN (and >>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>> Hyper-V) are suitable to be used for game servers because they >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> ones that introduce the lower overhead and response delay. >>>>>>> Having a minor performance loss is fine, as long as no noticeable >>>>>>> jitter is >>>>>>> introduced or ping is increased.Has anyone had a chance to test >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> products and compare srcds performance on the same machine when >>>>>>> virtualized >>>>>>> and when running on the bare metal? >>>>>>> Provided that the machine can handle it, do you know if it is >>>>>>> possible to >>>>>>> virtualize tickrate100, 1000fps CSS servers? Not that i want to do >>>>>>> that, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> if it can be done.. anything can be done :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best regards, >>>>>>> Claudio >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>>>>> archives, >>>>>>> please visit: >>>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>>>> archives, please visit: >>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>>>> archives, please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
