Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad
-
Late follow-up screenshot of host performance with the VM powered off.
-
So I realize that CentOS is more or less dead for most folks, but have you tried spinning up the equivalent CentOS version to compare apples to apples? I'll admit that I've never touched Oracle Linux and haven't had need for CentOS in a while but big performance differences shouldn't really be a thing between modern linux distros.... Maybe your Oracle install has additional encryption (full system ?) or something with the filesystem or mount options that's making it work harder?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
Just to add, yes the VM's drivers were install Paravirtualized.
The install had completed some time ago (I started the install a week ago I believe) and eventually just walked away as I couldn't wait to watch it complete.
To me "VM's drivers were install Paravirtualized" sounds like a warning flag.
What do you mean exactly?
Linux has kernel support for running virtualized and has had for a long time. You shouldn't install any drivers of any kind. -
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@EddieJennings On what hypervisor, I'm assuming XCP-ng?
KVM (Centos 8 Stream).
-
@Pete-S said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
Just to add, yes the VM's drivers were install Paravirtualized.
The install had completed some time ago (I started the install a week ago I believe) and eventually just walked away as I couldn't wait to watch it complete.
To me "VM's drivers were install Paravirtualized" sounds like a warning flag.
What do you mean exactly?
Linux has kernel support for running virtualized and has had for a long time. You shouldn't install any drivers of any kind.To follow up on that note, xen has guest tools you can install. But they are just for communication between the guest and the hypervisor so that the hypervisor knows how much memory the guest uses and so on.
-
I haven't installed CentOS in a long time now, but even the installation routine was dog slow when I did (CentOS 7).
-
@travisdh1 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
I haven't installed CentOS in a long time now, but even the installation routine was dog slow when I did (CentOS 7).
I did not too long ago (and RHEL as well) but I didn't notice anything different versus Fedora. All of them where slow-ish compared to Debian. But Debian is very minimal in comparison so it makes sense that it's faster to install.
With comparable installs (the same packages) the difference between distros should be small - especially if they are the same "family". What could make a big difference however is bandwidth to the package repositories - if it's not on the ISO.
-
So the issue I have with the drivers thought @Pete-S is the performance of this VM immediate (at the start of installation) begins to cause the host trouble.
I also tested with Fedora Desktop and Ubuntu server and neither of these caused the host CPU usage to skyrocket.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
So the issue I have with the drivers thought @Pete-S is the performance of this VM immediate (at the start of installation) begins to cause the host trouble.
I also tested with Fedora Desktop and Ubuntu server and neither of these caused the host CPU usage to skyrocket.
So it's already before it's actually installed?
I might give it a try on our servers. What version xcp-ng are you running and what version Oracle Linux are you installing?
-
@Pete-S said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
So the issue I have with the drivers thought @Pete-S is the performance of this VM immediate (at the start of installation) begins to cause the host trouble.
I also tested with Fedora Desktop and Ubuntu server and neither of these caused the host CPU usage to skyrocket.
So it's already before it's actually installed?
I might give it a try on our servers. What version xcp-ng are you running and what version Oracle Linux are you installing?
Current XCP-ng and 8.3 Oracle Linux (used the full dvd iso)
-
@notverypunny said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
So I realize that CentOS is more or less dead
No CentOS is not dead for anyone unless the software you are running on it no longer supports CentOS.
On the servers you all use that are running CentOS, what software are you using on it that will no longer support running on CentOS?
Perhaps one of tje reasons a software vendor, for example NGINX, would stop supporting CentOS, is if the release cycle is too crazy? Well,
we know that won't be the case because they already support ones that are faster.So really, what are you all thinking? What software is dumping CentOS, why, and why not distros on a more frequent cycle instead that they support?
-
@Obsolesce CentOS as a product is dead, the alternatives are RHEL or CentOS Stream.
Read the news, Redhat IBM has killed the CentOS downstream development (by simply not paying the developers to work on it).
Edit: Also make your own flame post don't hijack someone else'.
-
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@notverypunny said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
So I realize that CentOS is more or less dead
No CentOS is not dead for anyone unless the software you are running on it no longer supports CentOS.
On the servers you all use that are running CentOS, what software are you using on it that will no longer support running on CentOS?
Perhaps one of tje reasons a software vendor, for example NGINX, would stop supporting CentOS, is if the release cycle is too crazy? Well,
we know that won't be the case because they already support ones that are faster.So really, what are you all thinking? What software is dumping CentOS, why, and why not distros on a more frequent cycle instead that they support?
Biggest problem are other distros that use centos as their upstream.
End users might run software that depends on RHEL/CentOS, but is not supported on Fedora (but might work or maybe not).
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
CentOS Stream
That's what I'm referring to.
-
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
CentOS Stream
That's what I'm referring to.
CentOS Stream != CentOS.
They are fundamentally different systems as one is based on "Just before production ready" and the other is based on "Production ready and redeveloped after release of production"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
CentOS Stream
That's what I'm referring to.
CentOS Stream != CentOS.
They are fundamentally different systems as one is based on "Just before production ready" and the other is based on "Production ready and redeveloped after release of production"
I'm fully aware of the difference between Centos Linux and Centos Stream. That is completely besides the point, and seems like you are just trying to strawman due to lack of anything intelligent to offer, as usual.
My point was that in the future, you can use whatever OS you want that the software vendor fully supports, regardless of of its name.
-
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
CentOS Stream
That's what I'm referring to.
CentOS Stream != CentOS.
They are fundamentally different systems as one is based on "Just before production ready" and the other is based on "Production ready and redeveloped after release of production"
I'm fully aware of the difference between Centos Linux and Centos Stream. That is completely besides the point, and seems like you are just trying to strawman due to lack of anything intelligent to offer, as usual.
My point was that in the future, you can use whatever OS you want that the software vendor fully supports, regardless of of its name.
This isn't a strawman argument. Would you run your production systems on something that is unsupported (assuming none of your software is supported on a development OS)?
Of course you wouldn't so saying that CentOS Stream is a valid option isn't for many because of this very issue.
Regarding the same point that someone else mentioned any distro's that are based on CentOS will now have to rebase on CentOS Stream or build from the ground up.
RedHat and RHEL really screwed over many different facets.
Now @Obsolesce how about you go shovel dirt somewhere else? Or are you not done plugging one out, wanker.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@Obsolesce said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
CentOS Stream
That's what I'm referring to.
CentOS Stream != CentOS.
They are fundamentally different systems as one is based on "Just before production ready" and the other is based on "Production ready and redeveloped after release of production"
I'm fully aware of the difference between Centos Linux and Centos Stream. That is completely besides the point, and seems like you are just trying to strawman due to lack of anything intelligent to offer, as usual.
My point was that in the future, you can use whatever OS you want that the software vendor fully supports, regardless of of its name.
This isn't a strawman argument. Would you run your production systems on something that is unsupported (assuming none of your software is supported on a development OS)?
Of course you wouldn't so saying that CentOS Stream is a valid option isn't for many because of this very issue.
Regarding the same point that someone else mentioned any distro's that are based on CentOS will now have to rebase on CentOS Stream or build from the ground up.
RedHat and RHEL really screwed over many different facets.
Now @Obsolesce how about you go shovel dirt somewhere else? Or are you not done plugging one out, wanker.
Haha, well this reply does nothing but proves your reading and comprehension abilities are severely lacking.
Nowhere did I suggest running an unsupported OS. In fact, my very point was the exact opposite, stating specifically about running an OS that is supported.
Perhaps you're the one plugging dirt with your wanker shovel, or whatever the hell you're talking about there...
-
@Obsolesce Again you're conflating being supported Downstream with being supported Upstream and these are not the same.
Your ability to comprehend this is obviously not developed.
Just because something may be supported, doesn't imply that it is support.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Oracle Linux Installation and performance seems insanely bad:
Just because something may be supported, doesn't imply that it is support.
