![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Guest | slow performance on VM My VMs have slowed to a crawl. I'm running Virtual Server 2005R2 on a W2K3 box with 16GB RAM quad cpu. Host server seems to be ok on RAM and CPU utilization, so does the VM but I can't pinpoint why all the sudden the VMs are running slow. Any suggestions? Thanks. -- |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM I/O throughput? If your disk subsystem gets bogged down, everything will slow to a crawl. Another possibility is memory fragmentation. If the host box has been up for a long time, it might have fragmented memory, especially if this is a 32-bit 2k3 box. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Geb" <geb@_nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23OlMCzJBJHA.2476@xxxxxx Quote: > My VMs have slowed to a crawl. I'm running Virtual Server 2005R2 on a > W2K3 box with 16GB RAM quad cpu. Host server seems to be ok on RAM and > CPU utilization, so does the VM but I can't pinpoint why all the sudden > the VMs are running slow. Any suggestions? Thanks. > > -- > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: Quote: > I/O throughput? If your disk subsystem gets bogged down, everything > will slow to a crawl. > > Another possibility is memory fragmentation. If the host box has been > up for a long time, it might have fragmented memory, especially if > this is a 32-bit 2k3 box. performance monitor and the ave.disk queue lenght is always at 100. Does this indicate a problem? -- |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Sure sounds like it to me. What's your I/O subsystem look like on that box? What's your disk fragmentation look like? Are you running a nice, wide, array on high performance SAS disks? or a 3 disk RAID5 on SATA? -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Geb" <geb@_nospam.com> wrote in message news:ejXHkWXBJHA.2060@xxxxxx Quote: > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > Quote: >> I/O throughput? If your disk subsystem gets bogged down, everything >> will slow to a crawl. >> >> Another possibility is memory fragmentation. If the host box has been >> up for a long time, it might have fragmented memory, especially if >> this is a 32-bit 2k3 box. > I just rebooted, a little improvement but still slow. I turned on > performance monitor and the ave.disk queue lenght is always at 100. > Does this indicate a problem? > > -- > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: Quote: > Sure sounds like it to me. What's your I/O subsystem look like on > that box? What's your disk fragmentation look like? Are you running a > nice, wide, array on high performance SAS disks? or a 3 disk RAID5 on > SATA? The ave disk queue length seems to be not pegging at 100 at the moment. It's going up and down wildly depending on what's going on the VMs. Fragmentation Info: Volume (C ![]() Volume size = 466 GB Cluster size = 4KB Used Space = 180 GB Free Space = 286 GB Percent free sp = 61 % Volume fragmentation Total fragmentation = 3% File framentation = 7% Free space fragmentation = % File Fragmentation Total files = 24,807 Ave file size = 8 MB Total fragmented files = 229 Total excess fragmenents = 4,462 Ave fragements per file = 1.17 Pagefile fragmentation Page file size = 2.00 GB Total fragements = 1 Folder fragmentation Total folders = 2,666 Fragmented folders = 3 Excess folder fragements = 11 Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation Total MFT size = 27 MB MFT record count = 27,658 Percent MFT in use = 98 Total MFT fragements = 2 I have 2 HP 500GB SATA non-hot plug 7,200 RPM 1" hard drives (mirrored) on a LSI Adapter, SAS 3000 series. Hope that gives you a clearer picture. -- |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Yup, gives me a good picture. You're I/O bound. SATA drives are simply getting more than they can handle. Honestly, Virtualization is a great thing, but it _seriously_ stresses the I/O subsystem. Then you've put all your stuff on the system drive, creating additional load. And finally, to compound the problem, you've got 4k clusters - I like something more on the order of 16k clusters or even larger on VHD storage. If you're going to use SATA drives, you've be FAR better off having more, but smaller drives, configured in an array. I don't know what your physical server looks like, but if you can put in an array of 6 or 8 smaller SATA (or better yet, SAS) drives, you'll change the picture completely. To give you an idea, here's how my main Hyper-V server is configured. (It's an HP ML-350G5 with dual 5130 CPUs and a SmartArray P400 controller, plus an additioanl Adaptec SAS controller.) 2 - 36 GB SAS drives - RAID-1 - C: drive, system 2 - 320 GB SATA drives - RAID-0 - D: drive - temporary, disposable storage. ISOs, etc. 8 - 72 GB, 2.5", 15k SAS drives - RAID-5 - E: drive - my VHDs reside here. Even that isn't perfect - I'd do better with RAID-10 for the VHD drive, but it would mean swapping out the 72GB drives for 144's and the budget won't handle that right now. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Geb" <geb@_nospam.com> wrote in message news:e1XnPNtBJHA.4172@xxxxxx Quote: > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > Quote: >> Sure sounds like it to me. What's your I/O subsystem look like on >> that box? What's your disk fragmentation look like? Are you running a >> nice, wide, array on high performance SAS disks? or a 3 disk RAID5 on >> SATA? > > The ave disk queue length seems to be not pegging at 100 at the moment. > It's going up and down wildly depending on what's going on the VMs. > > Fragmentation Info: > > Volume (C ![]() > Volume size = 466 GB > Cluster size = 4KB > Used Space = 180 GB > Free Space = 286 GB > Percent free sp = 61 % > Volume fragmentation > Total fragmentation = 3% > File framentation = 7% > Free space fragmentation = % > File Fragmentation > Total files = 24,807 > Ave file size = 8 MB > Total fragmented files = 229 > Total excess fragmenents = 4,462 > Ave fragements per file = 1.17 > Pagefile fragmentation > Page file size = 2.00 GB > Total fragements = 1 > Folder fragmentation > Total folders = 2,666 > Fragmented folders = 3 > Excess folder fragements = 11 > Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation > Total MFT size = 27 MB > MFT record count = 27,658 > Percent MFT in use = 98 > Total MFT fragements = 2 > > > I have 2 HP 500GB SATA non-hot plug 7,200 RPM 1" hard drives (mirrored) > on a LSI Adapter, SAS 3000 series. > > > Hope that gives you a clearer picture. > > > > -- > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: Quote: > Yup, gives me a good picture. > > You're I/O bound. SATA drives are simply getting more than they can > handle. Honestly, Virtualization is a great thing, but it seriously > stresses the I/O subsystem. Then you've put all your stuff on the > system drive, creating additional load. And finally, to compound the > problem, you've got 4k clusters - I like something more on the order > of 16k clusters or even larger on VHD storage. > > If you're going to use SATA drives, you've be FAR better off having > more, but smaller drives, configured in an array. I don't know what > your physical server looks like, but if you can put in an array of 6 > or 8 smaller SATA (or better yet, SAS) drives, you'll change the > picture completely. To give you an idea, here's how my main Hyper-V > server is configured. (It's an HP ML-350G5 with dual 5130 CPUs and a > SmartArray P400 controller, plus an additioanl Adaptec SAS > controller.) > > 2 - 36 GB SAS drives - RAID-1 - C: drive, system > 2 - 320 GB SATA drives - RAID-0 - D: drive - temporary, disposable > storage. ISOs, etc. > 8 - 72 GB, 2.5", 15k SAS drives - RAID-5 - E: drive - my VHDs reside > here. > > Even that isn't perfect - I'd do better with RAID-10 for the VHD > drive, but it would mean swapping out the 72GB drives for 144's and > the budget won't handle that right now. Thanks for the info. I usually get DL380s which have better disk I/O but I had to resort to using a DL145 for the virtual server. Btw, how is easy/hard is it to move a VM to another physical hardware, would it be just moving a few files (vhd, etc)? Thanks. -- |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #8 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: slow performance on VM Yup, I've got a DL-380 here - with 8x SAS drives on that one too, but only 10k. I/O is good on it, though, you're right. A far better choice thanthe 145 with only a pair of SATA drives.) Moving a VM to new hardware is fairly simple. If you're running Hyper-V, you should export the VM and then move the files, and import on the target end. If Virtual Server, you just move the files, and recreate the VM, pointing to the VHDs. In both cases, you're likely to have to recreate the networking to match. (That first boot of the VM can be a bit slow if you don't match it up exactly.) Another alternative, and one I really like, is using SCVMM to manage VM locations. It does a really good job of moving VMs and managing which ones are where. You'll need the (soon to be released) 2008 version to handle Hyper-V. The 2007 version only does VS. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Geb" <geb@_nospam.com> wrote in message news:e$WZJtGCJHA.1224@xxxxxx Quote: > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > Quote: >> Yup, gives me a good picture. >> >> You're I/O bound. SATA drives are simply getting more than they can >> handle. Honestly, Virtualization is a great thing, but it seriously >> stresses the I/O subsystem. Then you've put all your stuff on the >> system drive, creating additional load. And finally, to compound the >> problem, you've got 4k clusters - I like something more on the order >> of 16k clusters or even larger on VHD storage. >> >> If you're going to use SATA drives, you've be FAR better off having >> more, but smaller drives, configured in an array. I don't know what >> your physical server looks like, but if you can put in an array of 6 >> or 8 smaller SATA (or better yet, SAS) drives, you'll change the >> picture completely. To give you an idea, here's how my main Hyper-V >> server is configured. (It's an HP ML-350G5 with dual 5130 CPUs and a >> SmartArray P400 controller, plus an additioanl Adaptec SAS >> controller.) >> >> 2 - 36 GB SAS drives - RAID-1 - C: drive, system >> 2 - 320 GB SATA drives - RAID-0 - D: drive - temporary, disposable >> storage. ISOs, etc. >> 8 - 72 GB, 2.5", 15k SAS drives - RAID-5 - E: drive - my VHDs reside >> here. >> >> Even that isn't perfect - I'd do better with RAID-10 for the VHD >> drive, but it would mean swapping out the 72GB drives for 144's and >> the budget won't handle that right now. > > Thanks for the info. I usually get DL380s which have better disk I/O > but I had to resort to using a DL145 for the virtual server. > > Btw, how is easy/hard is it to move a VM to another physical hardware, > would it be just moving a few files (vhd, etc)? > > Thanks. > > > > -- > |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Slow performance in VM | Virtual Server | |||
| very slow performance | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| very slow performance | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| Base Filtering Engine in Vista causing very slow DNS lookups and slow internet performance | Vista security | |||
| Slow Performance, What Could/Should I Do? | Vista performance & maintenance | |||