Re: [Xen-users] Differences in performance between file and LVM based images

[Alex Iribarren <Alex.Iribarren@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Christoph,

Christoph Purrucker wrote:
> cool you brought yourself to do the benchmark. But this test was a bit
> useless:

:) I knew I was going to get that. Don't be so quick to dismiss this
benchmark as useless just because it doesn't match your use-case.

The original email that prompted me to do this asked about performance
penalty of using files vs. LVM volumes, but it didn't give any more
conditions. I chose 900MB files because it is close to how I would use
Xen (where this more than an experiment), and because it was the biggest
size I could get immediately (I don't have full control over this
machine, nor time to invest in this).

I'm aware of the fact that 900MB files will be cached, specially on a
machine as powerful and idle as this. However, I was trying to measure
the performance I could "realistically" get, not the overhead of LVM vs.
files vs. direct access.

Having said that, I invite you (everybody, not just you) to continue
with these kind of benchmarks. If you test the actual overhead of each
system and manage to eliminate all the caching, I'd be interested in
seeing your results.

Cheers,
Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users