In a previous blog entry I explained the different types of storage choices you have with Hyper-V. However we had nore released yet so no numbers could be published. You can find the original post below...
Now that we have release I wanted to share some numbers from a mid-range storage device.
For the storage performance results below we used;
We chose this configuration because it was pretty low to mid range, would be very low cost, and therefore within reach of all customers running Hyper-V. If you are running Hyper-V with big servers and storage containing 100's of disks you find it handles it very well with very little overhead. That might be the subject of a future post.
The following graphs show sequential I/O performance of 512Byte reads and writes. We choose this to measure because it would approximate the behavior or loading applications, editing small files, and other types of workloads doing sequential I/O. We saw big improvements with larger I/O's (>4x) but for many workloads those are not that likely to be encountered.
The following graphs show 8KByte random read and write performance. We chose 8KByes reads and writes because many servers such as SQL Server 2008 use this sized I/O for most operations.
From the graphs you can see that Emulated IDE (aka you are not running with Integration Components installed) is never a good choice.
Passthough followed by fixed disks have the overall best performance. Dynamic and differencing disks are good choices when you need flexibility.