Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Samsung Silent On Disastrous Galaxy S6 Sales||
|The official animal captions thread||
|What are you listening to? (2015 Edition)||
|Huge performance degredation with Firefox 38||
|Are you afraid to die?||
Posted 28 May 2013 - 12:59
Posted 28 May 2013 - 13:04
Posted 28 May 2013 - 13:14
"With all 3 VMs idle, the machine was sitting at around 0.7 load"
So your solution was to run a type 2 hypervisor? So here I am running 5 Vms as you can see - and NOT idle, in the middle of a download from my seedbox that is doing 2MBps - I limited it to that so I can use the internet, or it maxes out my download pipe at 3.27MBps. My router is VM, so routing/firewalling stuff while my whole house uses the internet is not idle.. But I forgot I am running those other vms, going to shut them down and check the load again.
Notice its been up 20 days, it would of been up longer if I handed updated it to 5.1 update 1, etc.
edit: here you go shut down those 2 hogs using up multiple vcpus - they are both set to use 2. win7 and win8 vms.. So shut them down and now just my core 3 running. Pfsense, ubuntu and 2008 storage essentials and my download is finished - let is sit for a minute without doing anything so I would say this is typical of idle
So curious to how your setup was if you were seeing .7 without doing anything??
Posted 28 May 2013 - 14:04
Posted 29 May 2013 - 10:48
There are no tweaks in my setup - other than turning on ssh access, disable the firewall, enable copy paste from a vm, etc. Simple googles, etc. It really is a pretty generic out of the box config. Hit go, following the bouncing ball sort of thing. My guess was your system was not as idle as you think it was
What I find curious vs looking closer into what you thought was an issue with the box not handling your load correctly is to jump to a type 2, which moves your vms even father away from the hardware and adds more overhead, since your now running a full OS, then on top of that VM software, and then your vms. Vs what you were doing before was a type 1, which is hypervisor then vm - less things to suck up overall hardware resources then your current setup.
Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:16
Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:37
Yeah there are plenty of options, and depending on what the user wants its very true that a type2 might be better suited for his needs. And depending on which one used some of them do run at the kernel level like virtualbox or KVM, etc. So yes there have been advances in performance between type 1 and 2.
I personally would of investigated why you were not getting the performance you thought you should get before jumping to a different setup.. If what your looking for is a box to run your vms. If you were looking for a workstation to use, that can also run vms - then sure type 2 is better choice. But the microsever line does not make for good desktop type machine
Also you do need to keep in mind that your on a dual core system with a microserver. So .7 is really a .35 compared to a single core.
Just wanting to point out this information before you attempt to scare away the use of esxi on the microserver line.. I am more that happy with its performance - and if research you will find many many happy users of esxi on the hp microservers. They just need more ram and nics to make them viable little home/vm hosts. Would love to fire up a second one to be honest And power consumption is great on them - mine draws like 55 watts. That is with 4 HDD in it..
But I agree options are always great..
Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:05