On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:36:58AM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > > > J. Landamore wrote: > >Mark, > > > >Sorry about the delay > > Don't see anything obvious below... Did you get a chance to > try a PV OpenSolaris guest?
Mark, Yes and it appears to solve the problem, final test tonight. Using b130 from genunix brings with it some other (non-OS) problems but I'm downloading SXCE b130 for the final test. Hopefully this should be the same and also sort out the non-OS problems. Thanks for all your help. John > > > > MRJ > > > > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:39:47AM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > >> > >>[email protected] wrote: > >>>We have 2 sets of identical hardware, identically configured, both > >>>exhibiting disk i/o performance problems with 2 of their 4 DomUs > >>> > >>>The DomUs in question each act as a nfs filesever. The fileserver is > >>>made up from 2 zvols, one holds the DomU (solaris 10) and the other is > >>>mounted to the DomU and contains the user's files which are then nfs > >>>exported. Both zvols are formatted as UFS. For the first 25-30 nfs > >>>clients performance is OK, after that client performance drops off > >>>rapidly e.g. a "ls -l" of the user's home area taking 90 seconds. > >>>Everything is stock - no tuning. > >>When does xentop report for the guest? For both dom0 and dom0, > >>what does iostat -x report? > > > >During "normal" running the stats are > > > >xentop: > > NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k) MAXMEM(%) > >VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR > >SSID > > achilles -----r 2412 120.1 1580792 18.8 1581056 18.8 > >2 1 161632 8712 4 0 682 1006 > > 0 > > Domain-0 -----r 90049 164.1 2097152 25.0 no limit n/a > >2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > 0 > > > >Dom0 iostat: > >device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b > >sd0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >sd1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >sd2 486.7 0.0 4713.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.0 1 79 > > > >DomU iostat: > >device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b > >cmdk0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >cmdk1 126.5 331.7 2593.7 3324.2 0.0 7.5 16.4 1 89 > >cmdk2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > > > > > >When performance drops off we get > > > >xentop: > > NAME STATE CPU(sec) CPU(%) MEM(k) MEM(%) MAXMEM(k) MAXMEM(%) > >VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS VBD_OO VBD_RD VBD_WR > >SSID > > achilles --b--- 2475 0.6 1580792 18.8 1581056 18.8 > >2 1 0 0 4 0 0 14 > > 0 > > Domain-0 -----r 90140 7.1 2097152 25.0 no limit n/a > >2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > 0 > > > >Dom0 iostat: > >device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b > >sd0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >sd1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >sd2 39.7 161.3 2199.0 5919.7 0.0 17.7 88.2 0 100 > > > >DomU iostat: > >device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b > >cmdk0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > >cmdk1 1.3 1.0 26.7 4.0 5.7 32.0 16164.7 100 100 > >cmdk2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 > > > >istats persist like this for 4 or 5 seconds and then drop back towards > >"normal" but performance on the client remains very poor. > > > >Thanks > > > >John > > > > > >>What Solaris 10 update? > >> > >>Have you tried a PV opensolaris guest for the NFS server > >>running the latest bits? If not, can you do this? There > >>have been some xnf (NIC driver) fixes which could explain > >>this. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Anyone any suggestions what I can do to improve matters - would using > >>>ZFS rather than UFS for the user disk change matters? > >> > >>It should not. > >> > >> > >> > >>>The underlying disks are managed by a hardware RAID controller so the > >>>zpool in the Dom0 just sees a single disk. > >>Why wouldn't you use the disks as a jbod and give them all to > >>zfs? > >> > > > -- John Landamore Department of Computer Science University of Leicester University Road, LEICESTER, LE1 7RH [email protected] Phone: +44 (0)116 2523410 Fax: +44 (0)116 2523604 _______________________________________________ xen-discuss mailing list [email protected]
