From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] kvm tools, qcow: Improve QCOW performance
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:36:45 +0200
Message-ID: <20110711103645.GA11338@elte.hu>
References: <1310216563-17503-1-git-send-email-penberg@kernel.org>
 <20110710171543.GA19513@elte.hu>
 <CAOJsxLF_82ROQArmvSWCyozvLF730oxzGa-swF8hj0KTfTfL+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E1AC2E2.8040608@redhat.com>
 <CAOJsxLFX5sLRtVfD4hoAx6h+0Pdd8SEXa=5MgOKiGrfdk9NCdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Asias He <asias.hejun@gmail.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi124@gmail.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:45634 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753098Ab1GKKgv (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:36:51 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLFX5sLRtVfD4hoAx6h+0Pdd8SEXa=5MgOKiGrfdk9NCdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> wrote:

> > As Ingo already said, the cache mode is probably the major=20
> > difference. From what I can see in your code, cache=3Dwriteback=20
> > would be the equivalent for what tools/kvm is doing, however=20
> > cache=3Dnone (i.e. O_DIRECT) is what people usually do with qemu.
>=20
> Yup, I posted 'cache=3Dwriteback' results too which are much closer=20
> to tools/kvm numbers.

tools/kvm/ seems to be about 20% faster on average:

=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 7.68312 s, 66.5 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 7.54065 s, 67.8 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 9.34749 s, 54.7 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 9.2421 s, 55.3 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 9.9364 s, 51.5 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 10.0337 s, 51.0 MB/s
=A0 511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 9.39502 s, 54.4 MB/s

versus the qemu numbers:

  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 10.0879 s, 50.7 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 4.92686 s, 104 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 13.1955 s, 38.7 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 10.7322 s, 47.6 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 9.46115 s, 54.0 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 14.9963 s, 34.1 MB/s
  511229952 bytes (511 MB) copied, 11.1701 s, 45.8 MB/s

but indeed there's (much) more variability in the Qemu numbers,=20
suggesting some cache artifact.

Are all of these measurements done via /dev/shm, to stabilize the=20
numbers and to remove disk IO delay artifacts?

Thanks,

	Ingo