Recent content by fdcastel

Update: I rebuilt the VMs using Virtio SCSI, and performance again reached roughly double that of Virtio Block (matching the results seen when the drives were formatted with 512-byte blocks). This indicates that switching the NVMe block size from 512 to 4096 has minimal impact, or at least an...

Thank you, @ucholak, for sharing your experience and expertise -- I really appreciated it. You gave me a glimpse of hope, but unfortunately it faded rather quickly :) I reformatted my NVMe drives to 4K using: nvme format /dev/nvme2n1 --block-size=4096 --verbose --force nvme format...

But for now, no matter what I try, Hyper-V often delivers about 20%~25% better random I/O performance than Proxmox, and this has a direct impact on my application’s database response times. And, believe me, I tried EVERYTHING: cache={none,directsync,writeback} x aio={default,native} x...

Thanks, @ucholak! I wasn't aware of this command. It appears it's not: # nvme list Node Generic SN Model Namespace Usage Format FW Rev ---------------------...

I didn't even try. According to Proxmox VE documentation: The VirtIO Block controller, often just called VirtIO or virtio-blk, is an older type of paravirtualized controller. It has been superseded by the VirtIO SCSI Controller, in terms of features.

No. Both servers are configured identically: 2x1.92 TB drives (mirrored, "RAID 1") for the operating system, and another 2x1.92 TB drives (mirrored, "RAID 1") for the VMs.

- why identical tests on identical hardware are producing significantly different results? - why the Hyper-V benchmarks seem to align more closely with the manufacturer’s published performance? (It might simply be coincidence) - why Hyper-V appears to perform better in one specific case of...

@spirit I’m available to run any additional tests you’d like. These systems are up solely for testing, and I can rebuild them as needed.

I believe @spirit has nailed the issue of RND4K Q32T1 performance: Windows guest on Proxmox: During the RND4K Q32T1 test, cpu went to 12% (100% of 1 core on a 8-vcpu) Windows guest on Hyper-V Server: During the RND4K Q32T1 test, CPU usage reached about 15% (equivalent to roughly 50–60%...

Thank you, @spirit, for the valuable insights. I'm doing some tests now. But I believe you’ve nailed the issue. Please let's continue on https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-x-hyper-v-storage-performance.177355/ I'll post the results there.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I just realized I’ve hijacked this thread. I’ve opened a new one here: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-x-hyper-v-storage-performance.177355/

At first glance, Proxmox appears to offer substantial improvements over the old setup, with a few important observations: 1) According to Samsung’s official specifications this model is rated for 6800 MB/s sequential read and 2700 MB/s sequential write -- both numbers closely matching the...

For reference, the existing Hyper-V Server deployment (on identical hardware) yields the following results: C:\> fsutil fsinfo sectorInfo C: LogicalBytesPerSector : 512 PhysicalBytesPerSectorForAtomicity : 4096...

I’m evaluating Proxmox for potential use in a professional environment to host Windows VMs. Current production setup runs on Microsoft Hyper-V Server. Results follow: 1) Using --scsi0 "$VM_STORAGE:$VM_DISKSIZE,discard=on,iothread=1,ssd=1": C:\> fsutil fsinfo sectorInfo C...

Exactly. Results of Post #3 come from running CrystalDiskMark on guest VMs hosted on Proxmox 9.1.1. This was done on a test system with no other load. Results in Post #5 come from running CrystalDiskMark on guest VMs hosted on Hyper-V Server 2019 (fully updated). The Hyper-V environment is a...