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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox