Paul Raulerson wrote:
VMWare ESX imposes roughly the same overhead here as z/VM, about 3% of
the processor, and of course, it allocates memory on a virtual basis.
Now, the workstation versions are far more demanding, taking up to 35
or 40% of the processor; as far as I know, there is really no
VMWare ESX imposes roughly the same overhead here as z/VM, about 3% of
the processor, and of course, it allocates memory on a virtual basis.
Now, the workstation versions are far more demanding, taking up to 35
or 40% of the processor; as far as I know, there is really no analogy
of this in
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:25:17 -0500, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I got asked:
>
>Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware
, in
>which virtual I/O imposes significant overhead, but most processor and
>memory access runs at close to native physical speed
an
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 22:46
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:28:45 -0500, Huegel, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wr
ote:
>In the Z10-BC web announcement there was a comarison of Z/VM and VMware
running LINUX
I recommend use of the term "insertion loss" instead of "overhead".
The term comes from telecomm. The affect arises from any number of
JUSTIFIED additions to a transmission line which naturally introduce
attenuation of the signal.
Add a noise filter? It will reduce noise (which you want)
but it
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
Importance: High
Raymond...can you send me a copy as well...Pleasethanks
Danny Padilla
(623) 255 1553
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Raymond Noal
Sent
D] On
Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:37:40 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Thursday, 10/30/2008 at 10:29 EDT, David Kreuter While I will
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:37:40 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Thursday, 10/30/2008 at 10:29 EDT, David Kreuter
>While I will grant you the "optimization" point, let's not get too carri
ed
>away. In an LPAR, SIE handles guest I/O only for dedicated OSA and FCP
>adapters. All ot
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:28:45 -0500, Huegel, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
ote:
>In the Z10-BC web announcement there was a comarison of Z/VM and VMware
running LINUX
guests.
>I have the PDF presentation if you want it I can send it to you..
>Or it is probably not too difficult to find on IBM's w
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
Importance: High
Raymond...can you send me a copy as well...Pleasethanks
Danny Padilla
(623) 255 1553
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Raymond Noal
, October 31, 2008 9:23 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
Hi Thomas,
Could you send me a copy of this pdf presentation?
Thanks
P
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Huegel, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the Z10-BC web announcement there
, October 31, 2008 9:23 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
Hi Thomas,
Could you send me a copy of this pdf presentation?
Thanks
P
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Huegel, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In the Z10-BC web announcement there
Phil,
Pretty not too bad post! ;-)
Mike Walter
"Phil Smith III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System"
10/31/2008 07:34 AM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System"
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: I/O Overh
1, 2008 5:35 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
>
> David Kreuter wrote:
> >Is non-insignifcant a mutated way of saying significant?
>
> Kind of. Litotes -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes
>
> ...phsiii (beating RSchuh to it, maybe!)
>
LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
>
>
> I got asked:
>
> "Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware,=
> in
> which virtual I/O imposes significant overhead, but most processor and =
>
> memory access runs at
o our sunny io
disposition.
David
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Altmark
Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 11:37 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
On Thursday, 10/30/2008 at 10:29 EDT, David Kreuter
&l
On Thursday, 10/30/2008 at 10:29 EDT, David Kreuter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is non-insignifcant a mutated way of saying significant? The i/o code
in vm is
> like much of CP highly optimized. Overhead has been reduced greatly
since the
> XA introduction of SIE emulation. VM has low ove
Similar story at my former customer:
At a certain time, the VM systems got a DASD subsystem that MVS no
longer needed as it was replaced by a more modern one. These MVS guys
wanted to see our IO responsetime, which was worse than on MVS.
Conclusion (from the MVS guys): VM isn't as good as MVS. I
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mary Anne Matyaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for MDC, I've been curious about that lately. About a week ago, I turned
> off mdc for a highly active volume, and it seemed to me that resp increased
> rapidly and markedly.
It's good that you try and measure rathe
I think you need to compare Linux in a z/VM LPAR versus Linux Native, and
determine if one has more i/o overhead than the other. I think the answer is
going to be 'minimal'.
As someone said, and I have observed, my CP%CPU runs at 2-3%.
As for MDC, I've been curious about that lately. About a week
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:25 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
I got asked:
“Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware,=
in
which virtual I/O imposes significant overhead
The comparison is already complicated because of different
terminology. For example what we consider the "overhead of I/O" Is
that in CPU resources, memory or I/O resources? A Linux system for
example use a cache to avoid I/O, but that means there is "memory
overhead" for I/O. And when the page
David Kreuter wrote:
>Is non-insignifcant a mutated way of saying significant?
Kind of. Litotes -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes
...phsiii (beating RSchuh to it, maybe!)
it to CP.
David Kreuter
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Thu 10/30/2008 7:25 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
I got asked:
"Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar
From: Alan Ackerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:25:17 PM
Subject: [IBMVM] I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
I got asked:
“Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware, in
which virtual I/O imposes significant ov
I got asked:
“Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware,
in
which virtual I/O imposes significant overhead, but most processor and
memory access runs at close to native physical speed?”
I don’t know anything about VMWARE so I could not answer the question.
I
know
26 matches
Mail list logo
