All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Haigh <netwiz@crc.id.au>
To: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: 4.2.1: Poor write performance for DomU.
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:54:31 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5139A747.80703@crc.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51249C11.3050800@crc.id.au>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2336 bytes --]

On 20/02/2013 8:49 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 20/02/2013 7:49 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 20/02/2013 7:26 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On 20/02/13 03:10, Steven Haigh wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, please CC me in to any replies as I'm not a subscriber these
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> I've been trying to debug a problem with Xen 4.2.1 where I am unable to
>>>> achieve more than ~50Mb/sec sustained sequential write to a disk. The
>>>> DomU is configured as such:
>>>
>>> Since you mention 4.2.1 explicitly, is this a performance regression
>>> from previous versions? (4.2.0 or the 4.1 branch)
>>
>> This is actually a very good question. I've reinstalled my older
>> packages of Xen 4.1.3 back on the system. Rebooting into the new
>> hypervisor, then starting the single DomU again. Ran bonnie++ again on
>> the DomU:
>>
>> Still around 50Mb/sec - so this doesn't seem to be a regression, but
>> something else?
>
> I've actually done a bit of thinking about this... A recent thread on
> linux-raid kernel mailing list about Xen and DomU throughput made me
> revisit my setup. I know I used to be able to saturate GigE both ways
> (send and receive) to the samba share served by this DomU. This would
> mean I'd get at least 90-100Mbyte/sec. What exact config and kernel/xen
> versions this was as this point in time I cannot say.
>
> As such, I had a bit of a play and recreated my RAID6 with 64Kb chunk
> size. This seemed to make rebuild/resync speeds way worse - so I
> reverted to 128Kb chunk size.
>
> The benchmarks I am getting from the Dom0 is about what I'd expect - but
> I wouldn't expect to lose 130Mb/sec write speed to the phy:/ pass
> through of the LV.
>
>  From my known config where I could saturate the GigE connection, I have
> changed from kernel 2.6.32 (Jeremy's git repo) to the latest vanilla
> kernels - currently 3.7.9.
>
> My build of Xen 4.2.1 also has all of the recent security advisories
> patched as well. Although it is interesting to note that downgrading to
> Xen 4.1.2 made no difference to write speeds.
>

Just wondering if there is any further news or tests that I might be 
able to do on this?

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: netwiz@crc.id.au
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4240 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-08  8:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-20  2:10 4.2.1: Poor write performance for DomU Steven Haigh
2013-02-20  8:26 ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-02-20  8:49   ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20  9:49     ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20 10:12       ` Jan Beulich
2013-02-20 11:06         ` Andrew Cooper
2013-02-20 11:08           ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20 12:48             ` Andrew Cooper
2013-02-20 13:18             ` Pasi Kärkkäinen
2013-03-08 20:42               ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-08  8:54       ` Steven Haigh [this message]
2013-03-08  9:43         ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-03-08  9:46           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-08  9:54             ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-03-08 20:49         ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-08 22:30           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-11 13:30             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-11 13:37               ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-12 13:04                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-12 14:08                   ` Steven Haigh
     [not found]                   ` <514EA337.7030303@crc.id.au>
     [not found]                     ` <514EA6B0.8010504@crc.id.au>
     [not found]                       ` <514EA741.7050403@crc.id.au>
2013-03-24  9:10                         ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-24  9:54                           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-25  2:21                           ` Steven Haigh
2013-08-20 16:48                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-08-20 18:25                               ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-05  8:28                               ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-06 13:33                                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-09-06 23:06                                   ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-06 23:37                                     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

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=5139A747.80703@crc.id.au \
    --to=netwiz@crc.id.au \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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.