Xen Performance

[--[ UxBoD ]--]

Also depends on what processors you are using and whether the DomU's are para-virtualised or not.

Regards,

-- 
--[ UxBoD ]--
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://www.splatnix.net/uxbod.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: F57A 0CBD DD19 79E9 1FCC A612 CB36 D89D 2C5A 3A84
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 0x2C5A3A84
// Phone: +44 845 869 2749 SIP Phone: uxbod at sip.splatnix.net

----- "Jan-Peter Koopmann" <jan-peter at koopmann.eu> wrote:

> Hi,


> That is hard if not impossible to answer I am afraid. We are using
> 
> MailScanner and BarricadeMX on Virtual Iron (Xen based) on several
> sites
> 
> with great success. However none of them is high volume (ISP style).
> All
> 
> performance comparison I have seen and the few I have done myself
> 
> suggest (!) that a proper Xen implementation can (!) outperform ESX in
> 
> nearly all ways but certainly not to a big extent.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that to my knowledge VMWare simply does not allow
> proper
> 
> comparison of their platform to others and will smash down all reports
> 
> on it in public. I might be wrong though.
> 
> 
> 
> I think performance in your case will not be so much depending on
> using
> 
> ESX vs. a good Xen installation (with suitable drivers etc.). It is
> more
> 
> a question of "can/should I virtualize this" in the first place. This
> 
> again depends on your I/O requirements, what SAN/NAS you have
> available
> 
> etc., how much RAM, what CPUs etc. If you can virtualize it with ESX I
> 
> do not see why you would have a performance problem with Xen.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   JP

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.