Jump to content



Photo

How should I setup my HP Microserver?

microserver nas storage spaces

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 86
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 12:59

"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.

loadesxi.jpg

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

shutdownthehogs.jpg

So curious to how your setup was if you were seeing .7 without doing anything??


#17 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 28 May 2013 - 13:04

Hmm, you guys are giving me ideas for my box. Good read here :)

(sorry nothing to contribute but i'll be checking this thread more often :p)

#18 Brian M.

Brian M.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 07-January 05
  • Location: London, UK

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??


Not all of us are experts when it comes to ESXi - I had a fairly default ESXi installation, with pretty much default Windows installations. Those are the figures I saw.

Now, you may be able to optimise things, and tweak it to the levels you suggest, but that's probably beyond most people's capabilities.

#19 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 86
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 14:04

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.

#20 Brian M.

Brian M.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 07-January 05
  • Location: London, UK

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.


I can only go by what I can see. All guest VMs were pretty much as idle (CPU and I/O wise anyway) as they could be.

Either way - performance has improved dramatically. I was just suggesting that there's other options out there ;).

#21 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 86
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:16

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..

#22 +ChuckFinley

ChuckFinley

    member_id=28229

  • Joined: 14-May 03

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..


I'm firmly in the ESXi Camp with Budman and 99% of other geeks here. I was taken back a bit when you posted about performance issues with ESXi. The CPU for me is NEVER under any load. Unless I am running Boinc ha. Its the memory thats an issue for me. Im nearly always 7gb out of 8 but then again thats my problem. I just need to buy more ram.

I think ESXi and the later versions 5.1 + seem to get better every-time. Never really looked at the advanced options to squeeze that extra bit of performance out of these little babys! :-D

P.S Budman I have PM'd you ;-)

#23 +BudMan

BudMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 86
  • Joined: 04-July 02
  • Location: Schaumburg, IL
  • OS: Win7, Vista, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. etc.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:05

Saw your PM, thanks - answered you ;) Since that is clearly off topic discussion..hehehe

There was a thread back awhile when someone was troubleshooting esxi peformance.. cpressland I think.. They were having issues with moving files to the datastore, or just in general network related issues in speeds..

Now moving files to the datastore there have been complaints on that - and I have not followed through with going back to that thread, etc. And I have not benchmarked it since I don't move files to my datastore very often. Just new new iso for some linux distro now and then, and a couple of minutes was not that big of deal.. But now that I broke out my vmkern to its own nic, moving to the datastore does seem quicker than it was.. I should benchmark it.. Now vmware does state that your vmkern should be on its own.. So running it shared with other vms and vswitch to your lan could be a hit on performance that way.

I am curious what your load was when you were actually doing something on your vms? That would be more of indication of problems.. If your under 1 on single core your not slowing anything down. Since your dual core under 2 you still have room.. So I would be curious to what it was while you were using a VM to do something stressful.

I would be also curious - did you install the vmtools on your VMs?

Also there is much better ways to look into performance issues with your VMs vs just looking at pretty generic number like your cpu load average.. The performance tab is there for a reason ;) There is lots of variables to look at help determine why your performance not be what you expected, etc.