<?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: VMware&#8217;s Comparison of Storage Protocol Performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/</link>
	<description>qstat -u aleonard -s z</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:10:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Dan.  Are you able to give more details about the configuration of your NFS systems where you saw poor performance?

I wouldn&#039;t be surprised if VMware wants to get out of the filesystem business, although I think they&#039;re going to be supporting vmfs for a long time to come, given the installed base.  If it is the case that VMware is looking to NFS as their way out of developing filesystems, it&#039;s odd that we haven&#039;t heard much of anything about NFSv4.1 from them.

Andy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Dan.  Are you able to give more details about the configuration of your NFS systems where you saw poor performance?</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if VMware wants to get out of the filesystem business, although I think they&#8217;re going to be supporting vmfs for a long time to come, given the installed base.  If it is the case that VMware is looking to NFS as their way out of developing filesystems, it&#8217;s odd that we haven&#8217;t heard much of anything about NFSv4.1 from them.</p>
<p>Andy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andyleonard.com/2008/02/08/vmwares-comparison-of-storage-protocol-performance/#comment-8</guid>
		<description>While I agree with their finding that NFS is just as good for vmware, I don&#039;t agree with their testing methods.   

iometer tests using 100% read and write setting are not a good indicator for vmware performance.  Random IO is the key..  We have NFS storage systems that are very fast at sequential IO and poor random IO and the VM&#039;s are very slow.

Also, 256M VM may have been an issue in the numbers...

I believe there is a larger issue going here... I think vmware want&#039;s to get out of the filesystem business and HPC NFS systems are their way out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree with their finding that NFS is just as good for vmware, I don&#8217;t agree with their testing methods.   </p>
<p>iometer tests using 100% read and write setting are not a good indicator for vmware performance.  Random IO is the key..  We have NFS storage systems that are very fast at sequential IO and poor random IO and the VM&#8217;s are very slow.</p>
<p>Also, 256M VM may have been an issue in the numbers&#8230;</p>
<p>I believe there is a larger issue going here&#8230; I think vmware want&#8217;s to get out of the filesystem business and HPC NFS systems are their way out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
