From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: RW <kvm@tauceti.net>
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:00:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4ABC6AA5.6080909@tauceti.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from tauceti.net ([62.245.250.166]:37278 "EHLO www.tauceti.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752172AbZIYHAu (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:00:50 -0400
Received: from [10.0.0.8] (unknown [10.0.0.8])
	by www.tauceti.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE767C3923B
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:00:53 +0200 (CEST)
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

I've read the article a few days ago and it was interesting.
As I upgraded vom 2.6.29 to 2.6.30 (Gentoo) I also saw a dramatic
increase disk and filesystem performance. But then I realized
that the default mode for ext3 changed to "data=writeback".
So I changed that back to "data=ordered" and performance was
as it was with 2.6.29.

I think ext3 with "data=writeback" in a KVM and KVM started
with "if=virtio,cache=none" is a little bit crazy. I don't know
if this is the case with current Ubuntu Alpha but it looks
like so.

Regards,
Robert

> I would like to call attention to the SQLite performance under KVM in
> the current Ubuntu Alpha.
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2631_kvm&num=3
>
> SQLite's benchmark as part of the Phoronix Test Suite is typically IO
> limited and is affected by both disk and filesystem performance.
>
> en comparing SQLite under the host against the guest OS,  there is an
> der of magnitude _IMPROVEMENT_ in the measured performance  of the guest.
>
> I am expecting that the host is doing synchronous IO operations but
> somewhere in the stack the calls are ultimately being made asynchronous
> or at the very least batched for writing.
>
> On the surface, this represents a data integrity issue and  I am
> interested in the KVM communities thoughts on this behaviour.  Is it
> expected? Is it acceptable?  Is it safe?