From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Reeted <reeted@shiftmail.org>
Subject: Re: [libvirt] Qemu/KVM is 3x slower under libvirt (due to vhost=on)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:19:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4E82F49D.5000304@shiftmail.org>
References: <4E82118D.2010702@shiftmail.org>
	<20110928075138.GC21102@redhat.com> <4E82E6AF.5070009@shiftmail.org>
	<20110928092859.GO21102@redhat.com> <4E82ED8D.10004@shiftmail.org>
	<20110928095339.GP21102@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Return-path: <libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com>
In-reply-to: <20110928095339.GP21102@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/libvir-list>,
	<mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list>
List-Post: <mailto:libvir-list@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list>,
	<mailto:libvir-list-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 09/28/11 11:53, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Reeted wrote:
>> YES!
>> It's the vhost. With vhost=on it takes about 12 seconds more time to boot.
>>
>> ...meaning? :-)
> I've no idea. I was always under the impression that 'vhost=on' was
> the 'make it go much faster' switch. So something is going wrong
> here that I cna't explain.
>
> Perhaps one of the network people on this list can explain...
>
>
> To turn vhost off in the libvirt XML, you should be able to use
> <driver name='qemu'/>  for the interface in question,eg
>
>
>      <interface type='user'>
>        <mac address='52:54:00:e5:48:58'/>
>        <model type='virtio'/>
>        <driver name='qemu'/>
>      </interface>


Ok that seems to work: it removes the vhost part in the virsh launch 
hence cutting down 12secs of boot time.

If nobody comes out with an explanation of why, I will open another 
thread on the kvm list for this. I would probably need to test disk 
performance on vhost=on to see if it degrades or it's for another reason 
that boot time is increased.

Thanks so much for your help Daniel,
Reeted