In the past, I've played with VMware (as a "workstation" "server", not the bare-metal one we have access to now) but was never quite happy with it. Some of the problems I had might have been that I ran it on windows Vista, not Linux. However, from a VM point of view, the VM itself should be more or less identical.
Recently I tried out Xen on the same hardware, but using NetBSD/amd64 as the "host" OS.
Hardware
The machine is Gateway GM5446E with a dual core Intel Core 2 Duo with 3 GB of ram. The machine has three SATA hard drives, connected via an Intel AHCI controller running in native AHCI mode.
Bare Hardware Baseline
I booted a standard NetBSD-current/amd64 kernel and ran some speed tests, which gives a baseline for dom0 and guest OS disk I/O speed tests. See below.
VMware
In my VMware install, I used the machine running "Windows Vista Media Center" -- it was what came pre-installed on the machine.
Host OS: Windows Vista Media Center
Guest OSs tried:
- NetBSD-4.0/i386
- NetBSD-4.0/amd64
- NetBSD-current/i386
- NetBSD-current/amd64
- Linux Ubuntu (server, then-current version)
- Linux Debian (then-current version)
Linux booted in 64-bit mode, but would crap out at some later point with similar issues that NetBSD had.
One machine, named "nfsd", was dedicated to serving out home directories and source trees of NetBSD. The other host OSs mounted /home or /netbsd-src from nfsd.
Each machine had a "local" disk to store object files from pkgsrc, src, and other OS-related builds.
General VMware Problems
I could not get netbsd/amd64 (current or 4.0 release) to "self host" -- build /usr/src and kernels -- reliably. They would either silently lock up without reason, or they would crash with an odd CPU exception.
Timekeeping was whacky. Without running the VMware-supplied (closed source) tools on a client, time was off, and apparently in uncorrectable ways. Running ntp made things seriously whacky as the time would drift wildly as ntp tried to correct a guest.
The VMware closed-source tools are only available on a small, limited number of OS types, and then specific versions of many of them. They do supply a .so that is, in theory, linkable on many versions of Linux, but the install procedure warns loudly of warnings pertaining to compatibility.
VMware running on anything but Intel chips with synchronized cycle counters (which most OSs use for high-res timekeeping these days) was a disaster.
VMware Strengths
If the problems above are solved, VMware is a true virtual machine architecture that will run any OS without modification. VMware could run windows guests, right along with unmodified NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris/x86 guests.
Xen
I tried Xen 3.1.3.
Xen is a different architecture than vmware in that it prefers to use "paravirtualization" rather than a full virtual machine. It has a host machine (called "domain 0" or "dom0") which attaches to the physical hardware and acts as a conduit between the xen hypervisor and hardware.
The boot process is that the xen kernel is booted first, which then boots the dom0 host. Multiple domains can be created, serving different hardware, but in practice this is rarely done.
Each host OS has a config file, and is stated with "xm create /path/to/file.conf". This boots the guest OS and connects a serial console, which can be used with "xm console <name>".
Since the "dom0" is a fully functional OS in its own rights, I have it serve NFS to the guest OSs.
I created the following guest OSs:
- NetBSD-current/i386
- NetBSD-current/amd64
- Windows XP Pro (32-bit)
- Windows Server 2003 (32-bit)
Yes, I managed to install Windows XP Pro and Server 2003. They run in a "vnc" console, and for all practical purposes looks like windows. This is using Xen's "hvm" -- which is a full hardware emulated virtual machine, and allows running unmodified guest OSs. People have Vista running in a virual machine under Xen, but I do not have "real" Vista install media or licenses, just the ones that came with and is tied to my hardware.
Xen also supports both realtime and offline "migration." As I have only one machine of the same type, I have not yet read up on how this works. The basics: A realtime copy is made of the guest's ram, device state, and other data. It is transmitted to the new destination, and synced up until a very small switchover time can be used to swap where that guest is running. Xen claims 100 ms switchover time is possible, but there are restrictions: The disks are NOT migrated, so must reside on a shared volume. The physical network each dom0 is on is also shared, in order to avoid disruption of TCP connections. I also believe fairly identical CPU and dom0 operating systems should be used.
Offline migration involves shutting the guest down, copying the disks over, and restarting it on a new dom0. This will, of course, interrupt service.
Xen Problems
It is difficult to configure for the fist time. The documentation is... lacking. It is also only as solid as the host OS is, but vmware has the same issue in "server" or "workstation" incarnations.
Xen is also very, very "linux" specific in documentation and examples. Most of these can be translated -- I certainly did so easily enough -- but this is being corrected in their documentation as more OSs are able to boot as dom0.
Xen Strengths
Timekeeping in Xen, since it is paravirtualized, is almost perfect. Small drifts will occur without running ntp, but all guests (and the host) can run ntp and obtain sanity.
It also appears that all guests and the dom0 "drift" identically, so this is probably related to hardware timekeeping issues. The measured drift of an uncorrected NetBSD guest was 4 seconds in two weeks. ntp correction kept the others in perfect real-world sync.
It is as free as you want it to be. Support and commercial versions exist, but the free stuff works amazingly well.
Performance
On Xen, all tests were performed with the domu's running but idle, and no hvm guests running (windows is just too unpredictable.) On VMware, only one VM was active at once, and the Vista host was as idle as it could be made.
I measured three main things here:
- Boot speed: How fast a kernel gets from loading to the first /etc/rc message.
- Disk speed: read/write speed.
- CPU Performance.
Boot Speed
The dom0 boots as fast as any other kernel boots; it must probe the hardware, wait for hardware to change state, etc. No measured difference between a standard NetBSD-current/amd64 kernel and the dom0 kernel.
The domUs (guests) boot so fast it is nearly impossible to measure. This is because the devices they have access to are known -- all are on a virtual bus, and are directly enumerable, so there is no need to probe for devices, wait for them to change state, or time out when not present. As best I can measure, just under 2 seconds is a fair estimate.
The hvm (windows) guest seems to be about as fast as windows is. I did not analyze this one much.
On VMware, the host OSs boot at about the same speed as a "real" machine boots unless a custom kernel is built with just "known present" devices. Even then, boot times are 15-20 seconds.
Disk Speed
In all host/dom0 tests, "iozone" version 3.263 was used, with a 1 GB file on the same disk. Each test was performed only once; for real comparison data we'd want to run it more than once, but this is just a first-pass test.
For native NetBSD/amd64, I had to increase the file size to 4 GB to avoid the cache, as the machine has 3 GB of ram.
- wd0 is a 500 GB SATA 3.0Gb/sec disk.
- wd1 is present but unused.
- wd2 is a 320 GB SATA 1.5Gb/sec disk.
All are on different channels of an Intel AHCI controller running in native SATA mode.
For the Xen tests, all disks were mounted as files on the dom0 host. From dom0's point of view, the file is mounted on a "vnd" virtual disk, and that virtual disk is exported to the host.
For the VMware test, all disks were mounted as files in the Windows filesystem.
| OS | Disk | Block Size | Read | Write |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| netbsd-current/amd64 native | wd0 | 8192 | 60762 | 59949 |
| 16384 | 60545 | 60141 | ||
| wd2 | 8192 | 78342 | 76342 | |
| 16384 | 78311 | 75252 | ||
| netbsd-current/amd64 dom0 | wd0 | 8192 | 60641 | 60109 |
| 16384 | 60459 | 61919 | ||
| wd2 | 8192 | 80258 | 79102 | |
| 16384 | 80187 | 80295 | ||
| netbsd-current/amd64 domu | wd0 | 8192 | 51205 | 24004 |
| 16384 | 51714 | 27971 | ||
| wd2 | 8192 | 77990 | 23997 | |
| 16384 | 77282 | 22496 | ||
| netbsd-current/i386 domu | wd0 | 8192 | 41730 | 25012 |
| 16384 | 42008 | 24543 | ||
| wd2 | 8192 | 66401 | 26048 | |
| 16384 | 66201 | 28910 | ||
| netbsd-current/i386 vmware | wd0 | 8192 | 25014 | 13912 |
| 16384 | 25417 | 13771 | ||
| wd2 | 8192 | 38831 | 16100 | |
| 16384 | 38994 | 16332 |
I also repeated one test with a raw, physical partition mounted in the netbsd-current/amd64 domU, which bypasses the "double filesystem" issue:
| netbsd-current/amd64 domu | wd2 | 8192 | 79915 | 76992 |
| Physical mount | wd2 | 16384 | 79744 | 77102 |
CPU Performance
Each CPU speed test was run with: Dhrystone Benchmark, Version 2.1 (Language: C) Program compiled without 'register' attribute.
I used an iteration count of 1,000,000,000 for each test.
| Operating System | Dhrystones per second |
|---|---|
| netbsd-current/amd64 native | 11,013,216 |
| netbsd-current/amd64 dom0 | 10,365,917 |
| netbsd-current/amd64 domu | 11,130,899 |
| netbsd-current/i386 domu | 4,935,347 |
| netbsd-current/i386 vmware | 5,012,123 |
Just for grins, I ran the following tests, one dhrystone on one guest and another on a different one. Since each guest is uniprocessor in my configuration, I did not run two benchmarks on the same host.
| Operating Systems | Speed 1 | Speed 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Running both domu/i386 and domu/amd64 | 4916421.0 | 11135857.0 |
| Running both dom0/amd64 and domu/amd64 | 10298661.0 | 11135857.0 |
| Running both dom0/amd64 and domu/i386 | 10373444.0 | 4921260.0 |
Conclusions
Xen is production ready.
When the host OS can be modified, much higher performance numbers are obtained vs. the low-end VMware server I ran.
While it might be extremely tempting to build one guest that does one very specific function, this probably does not scale: memory is pre-allocated and dedicated to a guest, and while some swapping is allowed, it will slow the guest at seemingly random times; disk can be overcommitted, but the OS sees failure to allocate a block as a hardware failure; the more hosts, the more maintenance costs are present: maintaining packages on each guest, upgrading, etc.
VMware "hmx" or whatever the name of the run-on-bare-metal product should be tested.
I'd love to install Xen on a huge machine with lots of ram and many, many CPUs as a test. Would someone like to ship me a 4 CPU quad core with 64 GB?
