Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] Disk integrity in QEMU

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

Ryan Harper wrote:
> fio --name=guestrun --filename=/dev/vda --rw=write --bs=${SIZE}
> --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --norandommap --numjobs=1 --group_reporting
> --thread --size=1g --write_lat_log --write_bw_log --iodepth=74
>
>   

How large is /dev/vda?

Also, I think you're doing sequential access, which means sequential
runs will improve as data is brought into cache.  I suggest random
access, with a very large /dev/vga.

>> OK, but in this case the size of the cache for "cache=off" is the size  
>> of the guest cache whereas in the other cases the size of the cache is  
>> the size of the guest cache + the size of the host cache, this is not  
>> fair...
>>     
>
> it isn't supposed to be fair, cache=off is O_DIRECT, we're reading from
> the device, we *want* to be able to lean on the host cache to read the
> data, pay once and benefit in other guests if possible.
>
>   

My assumption is that the memory would be better utilized in the guest
(which makes better eviction choices, and which is a lot closer to the
application).  We'd need to run fio in non-direct mode to show this.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.