<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Xen disk performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:02:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: stateless</title>
		<link>http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-1384</link>
		<dc:creator>stateless</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/#comment-1384</guid>
		<description>Xen has improved a lot in the last 18 months. If you need performance best suggestion is get a copy of XenEnterprise and try that. Xen benchmarks say it is as good and maybe better than VI3, although because of VMware&#039;s EULA they don&#039;t state that directly.

I haven&#039;t done much testing with the newer 3.0.x versions myself recently, so I can&#039;t give any clear indications. However I think the domU to domU interaction is much better.  Some of the previous issues where caused by tcp checksum off-loading bugs.  Also the new schedule probably helps prevent running out of cpu splices when pushing disk IO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Xen has improved a lot in the last 18 months. If you need performance best suggestion is get a copy of XenEnterprise and try that. Xen benchmarks say it is as good and maybe better than VI3, although because of VMware&#8217;s EULA they don&#8217;t state that directly.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t done much testing with the newer 3.0.x versions myself recently, so I can&#8217;t give any clear indications. However I think the domU to domU interaction is much better.  Some of the previous issues where caused by tcp checksum off-loading bugs.  Also the new schedule probably helps prevent running out of cpu splices when pushing disk IO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-1383</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:23:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stateless.geek.nz/2005/08/29/xen-disk-performance/#comment-1383</guid>
		<description>Hey there, good story!  I&#039;m looking to do something similar, and finally move away from real iron to xen as well, but was curious what the speeds were like over the virtual networks; I&#039;m used to gigabit speeds for transferring files, etc.  What are your experiences as far as speeds of transferring files between dom0 and domU&#039;s?

Thanks so much!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there, good story!  I&#8217;m looking to do something similar, and finally move away from real iron to xen as well, but was curious what the speeds were like over the virtual networks; I&#8217;m used to gigabit speeds for transferring files, etc.  What are your experiences as far as speeds of transferring files between dom0 and domU&#8217;s?</p>
<p>Thanks so much!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

