Recommended Posts

I always use thick provisioning for running production servers and thin provisioning for testing things out in non-production servers. In fact, I'm going to go and see what I can do with the e1000 adapter, afaik it showed up in the list for my windows VM but not for my arch linux VM, not sure if it's because I'm using open-vm-tools or something else or what :s

Just wondering but have you tried a Linux VM and tested its SAMBA performance? I've been trying to track down an issue with three separate physical Windows 2008 R2 servers where their upload to other machines is dismal but other operating systems give great speeds. I have the three servers in an OVH data centre in France and I just thought I'd bring this up because when I tested Linux everything was A-OK. I'm sure if there was a problem with W2008R2 that it would be well publicised by now but I am starting to wonder...

Might be worth installing another OS just to check and see what happens.

iperf doesn't seam to like my Smart Switch, I get this output:


C:\Users\cpressland\Downloads>iperf -c 10.0.1.5
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.1.5, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[128] local 10.0.1.11 port 52443 connected with 10.0.1.5 port 5001
write failed: Software caused connection abort
read on server close failed: Software caused connection abort
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[128] 0.0- 0.0 sec 24.0 KBytes 16.4 Mbits/sec
C:\Users\cpressland\Downloads>

[/CODE]

Might be worth installing another OS just to check and see what happens.

Going to be setting up an Ubuntu 12.04 box to test later.

Here is a push from the VM itself to my workstation. This is from 2k8r2 storage essentials vm, seems to be pushing a file just fine.

post-14624-0-60312700-1335442654.jpg

Even after Zero-Filling the Drive, I'm not getting that kind of performance.

Maybe worth running a filesystem zeroing utility on each VM then just to expand them out to full size.

That doesn't explain my issues though.

Recommend any Free-Space ZeroFilling Tools?

Sure, use the vSphere Client. Browse the Datastore, locate the vmdk file, Right click and choose Inflate.

Okay - the connection issue was being caused by a service on 'Galactica' using port 5001.

I setup the same on my Mac Mini and ran the same test and got the following:


C:\Users\cpressland\Downloads>iperf -c 10.0.1.61 -w 256k
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.1.61, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 256 KByte
------------------------------------------------------------
[128] local 10.0.1.11 port 54281 connected with 10.0.1.61 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[128] 0.0-10.0 sec 423 MBytes 355 Mbits/sec

[/CODE]

well 355/8 gives you at max 44MBps

Half of what I am seeing. So that sure ain't helping you out. Why such bad network performance?

You mentioned a smart switch?? Maybe its not so smart ;) hehehe

Are you still 9000 mtu on your virtual switch? Do you have promiscuous allowed or something? Traffic shaping enabled?

You don't have your VMs in your management port group do you?

post-14624-0-76511100-1335447294.jpg

can you change it out to see if that changes your performance? I am running on gs108Tv1.. Do you have something tweaked in it that could be causing issues? I have jumbo support off, are you runing IGMP snooping? etc..? I use to run IGMP snooping and wish I could turn it back on.. But my freaking ecurrent bridge has a freaking multicast mac on it, and when I turn it on it gets blocked ;) Have not bothered into looking how to allow it to be on but block still block the other multicast traffic -- might look into that tonight ;)

192.168.1.220 7f-bf-a9-aa-29-5b dynamic

Why they did that I have no freaking Idea - and there is no way to fix it local, have to send it too them.. Which means will have it offline for weeks and weeks - has to go back to the UK.. I might just buy the new one that is coming out, and then send this one to them to fix.

But for test sure can not hurt to try a different switch.

From my FileServer:


C:\Users\CPressland\Downloads>iperf -c 10.0.1.61 -w 256k
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.1.61, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 256 KByte
------------------------------------------------------------
[164] local 10.0.1.5 port 62577 connected with 10.0.1.61 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[164] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 930 Mbits/sec
[/CODE]

I think it's safe to say it's only happening to ESXi.

If you don't have a switch with you, try a crossover cable?

Don't have one.

hmm I think newer nics you don't have to have it like that huh??? don't some of them take care of that for you??

Some of what?

From my FileServer:


C:\Users\CPressland\Downloads>iperf -c 10.0.1.61 -w 256k
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.1.61, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 256 KByte
------------------------------------------------------------
[164] local 10.0.1.5 port 62577 connected with 10.0.1.61 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[164] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 930 Mbits/sec
[/CODE]

I think it's safe to say it's only happening to ESXi.

Don't have one.

Some of what?

the nics... some nics that are new don't need crossover cables...

Yeah the newer cisco switches allow you to use either crossover or straight through cables in them and some of the newer expensive NICs allow it, as you've got intel server NICs, try it with a straight through cable and see if it acts as a crossover.

Wow that's pretty amazing :o swapped out all e1000's for vmxnet3 (took a lot of effort and editing of files with vi, urgh) and set all MTUs to 9000...

Made a urandom file on linux VM and sent it to host via scp;

bigfile 100% 78MB 39.1MB/s 00:02

Holy crap, what an improvement! I'm impressed, nice advice :D

yeah i would say that with 930Mbps -- its not a switch issue ;)

Unless its an issue to that nic in the esxi.

But yeah switch was long shot at best.. But if your seeing that kind of throughput between other devices.. Then I would say its good, you could move ports maybe? Change cables to the esxi..

So WTF would cause such bad performance? Did you make any tweaks to that virtual nic on the VM?

As you saw I am getting great performance from my vms -- and other than the nic itself I don't see what could be different. Other than just overall bad performance of the drives or vmfs? What if you do iperf between vms -- what do you see then?

post-14624-0-44916300-1335455395.jpg

Question are you using the built in n40L nic for your lan connection or the add on card? I am using the built in nic on the lan side of my esxi host.

post-14624-0-46582300-1335455825.jpg

If your using the intel one - try changing to use the built in one and see if that fixes your issue?

But yeah switch was long shot at best.. But if your seeing that kind of throughput between other devices.. Then I would say its good, you could move ports maybe? Change cables to the esxi..

Just swapped out the CAT5E Cables with a couple of brand new CAT6A cables between the N36L to the switch and the N40L and the Switch. All 100% SuperPowered now.

So WTF would cause such bad performance? Did you make any tweaks to that virtual nic on the VM?

No Tweaks other than the MTU Change that we've undone.

As you saw I am getting great performance from my vms -- and other than the nic itself I don't see what could be different. Other than just overall bad performance of the drives or vmfs? What if you do iperf between vms -- what do you see then?

Between, 300Mbits/sec (that really really does point to ESXi)

Question are you using the built in n40L nic for your lan connection or the add on card? I am using the built in nic on the lan side of my esxi host.

I'm using the built-in as WAN and the expansion card as LAN.

If your using the intel one - try changing to use the built in one and see if that fixes your issue?

All VMs have been migrated over to the VMXNET3 NICs, all other than the pfSense one that is.

So you only see 300Mbps between vms testing with iperf?? Something wrong there for sure.. See my 1.55Gbps

The physical nic should not even come into play when testing iperf between vms.. So WTF else could be the problem?? hmmmmm

I would look to why your only Seeing 300Mbits thats for sure!! That is horrific!! Is there some other traffic going on at the same time?? For test I would shut down all other vms.. Just leave the 2 your testing with. And make sure they are not doing anything -- 300mbits over the virtual switch -- WTF??

No I didn't mean vmxnet3 for trying other one.. I mean what physical nic is tied to each virtual switch.. I have the built in one connected to my lan vswitch. And the addon nic is connected to my wan vswitch. But again that shouldn't have anything to do with vms talking to each other over the vswitch - it shouldn't You could always remove the nic from the vswitch as a test.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • This sounds like underneath the nice marketing spin, either someone at Adobe got tired of their lazy devs and asked Microsoft to help them sort at least some of Adobe's ancestral spaghetti code to make it go faster, or Microsoft wanted Adobe's crap to run better on Windows to make it look better when compared to Apple, so they offered to intervene. Either way, GOOD.
    • My favorite file manager for Windows 11 finally gets a long-requested feature by Taras Buria Files is among the best File Explorer alternatives for Windows 10 and 11. This free app is packed with all sorts of features and conveniences, but there is one crucial feature that is still missing—Tree View. Fortunately, the latest update in the Preview channel finally delivers it. With version 4.1.4, which is now available for download in the Preview channel, developers implemented Tree View, a new mode that displays folders in an expandable hierarchy. Windows 11's stock File Explorer always had this feature, but it was nowhere to be found in Files until now. Starting with the latest preview update, you can expand each drive and its nested folders without leaving the current location and then open the folder you need in the main view. To try Tree View in Files, update the app to the latest preview version, then click the small arrow next to a drive to expand its content. The developers say they are rolling out Tree View in Preview first to gather feedback from users and improve the feature before bringing it to all in the stable channel. In addition to Tree View, Files 4.1.14 improves the Windows Fonts folder. You can now preview each font directly in Files with no need to open the built-in font viewer. For now, these two features are only available in the Preview channel. For those using the stable release, developers recently released version 4.1.3, with improvements for the built-in tag system, on-demand folder size calculation, and plenty of various fixes. You can check out the full release notes here. You can download Files from the Microsoft Store (paid version) or its official website (free).
    • Who is paying for this 30x scale-up? Its sounds expensive.
    • Millions of users to benefit from Windows 11's new performance boost on Adobe Photoshop by Sayan Sen Despite the advent of AI-generated imagery, Adobe's Photoshop remains one of the most popular tools on this planet. Adobe does not have a publicly reported total user count but it's probably not wrong to assume there are millions. As of 2025, Adobe Creative Cloud has had approximately 41 million paid subscribers, many of whom likely use Photoshop. In addition, more than 166,000 companies worldwide are apparently also using the app. These figures are according to a very recent report by SQ Magazine. Out of them, it is fair to assume that many are probably running Windows. As such, there is good news for these users as Microsoft has announced Photoshop is getting a big 20% performance boost on x86-64 (AMD64) systems and a 13% bump-up on Arm devices. This is definitely great news for them as many have complained about the slow performance and general sluggishness of Photoshop on Windows 11 ever since the advent of the latter back in 2021. If you are wondering how Microsoft managed to do this, the answer lies in a combination of compiler-level optimizations and a technology called Sample Profile Guided Optimization (SPGO). According to Microsoft, Adobe worked closely with the company’s Visual C++ team and adopted the latest MSVC toolchain enhancements together with SPGO to squeeze more performance out of Photoshop’s CPU-bound workloads. Unlike traditional Profile Guided Optimization (PGO), which requires developers to create special instrumented builds and run lengthy training workloads, SPGO gathers performance data directly from optimized release binaries. This means Adobe could collect real-world usage information which gives a major advantage to this technique, as companies could leverage data collected from actual customer workloads rather than only relying on synthetic benchmark runs. In theory, this should allow optimizations to better reflect how users interact with software in the real world. Thanks to this, there are improvements to code layout, function inlining, hot-and-cold code separation, and other low-level tweaks that help processors execute instructions more efficiently. Essentially the compiler is better able to identify “hot” code paths, those which are most frequently executed, and optimize them accordingly.
    • "The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months¨ I'd prefer to see the lowest price in over a year
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      521
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!