From: john cooper <john.cooper@redhat.com>
To: gordan@bobich.net, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: virtio disk slower than IDE?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:53:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B018386.7030804@redhat.com> (raw)
[prior attempts from elsewhere kept bouncing, apologies for any replication]
Gordan Bobic wrote:
> The test is building the Linux kernel (only taking the second run to give the test the benefit of local cache):
>
> make clean; make -j8 all; make clean; sync; time make -j8 all
>
> This takes about 10 minutes with IDE disk emulation and about 13 minutes with virtio. I ran the tests multiple time with most non-essential services on the host switched off (including cron/atd), and the guest in single-user mode to reduce the "noise" in the test to the minimum, and the results are pretty consistent, with virtio being about 30% behind.
I'd expect for an observed 30% wall clock time difference
of an operation as complex as a kernel build the base i/o
throughput disparity is substantially greater. Did you
try a more simple/regular load, eg: a streaming dd read
of various block sizes from guest raw disk devices?
This is also considerably easier to debug vs. the complex
i/o load generated by a build.
One way to chop up the problem space is using blktrace
on the host to observe both the i/o patterns coming out
of qemu and the host's response to them in terms of
turn around time. I expect you'll see somewhat different
nature requests generated by qemu w/r/t blocking and
number of threads serving virtio_blk requests relative
to ide but the host response should be essentially the
same in terms of data returned per unit time.
If the host looks to be turning around i/o request with
similar latency in both cases, the problem would be lower
frequency of requests generated by qemu in the case of
virtio_blk. Here it would be useful to know the host
load generated by the guest for both cases.
-john
--
john.cooper@redhat.com
next reply other threads:[~2009-11-16 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-16 16:53 john cooper [this message]
2009-11-17 1:14 ` virtio disk slower than IDE? Gordan Bobic
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-11-14 14:23 Gordan Bobic
2009-11-15 9:51 ` Dor Laor
2009-11-15 12:00 ` Gordan Bobic
2009-11-15 13:15 ` Dor Laor
2009-11-15 22:47 ` Gordan Bobic
2009-11-16 16:40 ` john cooper
2009-11-16 18:11 ` Charles Duffy
2009-11-16 21:09 ` Dor Laor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B018386.7030804@redhat.com \
--to=john.cooper@redhat.com \
--cc=gordan@bobich.net \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.