From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757133Ab1FPWu6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:50:58 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:40967 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755680Ab1FPWuz (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:50:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4DFA88CC.6050306@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:50:52 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Prasad Joshi , Sasha Levin , Cyrill Gorcunov , Asias He Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native Linux KVM tool v2 References: <1308153214.7566.6.camel@jaguar> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/16/2011 09:48 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> - Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See the >> following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888 > > It turns out we were benchmarking the wrong guest kernel version for > qemu-kvm which is why it performed so much worse. Here's a summary of > qemu-kvm beating tools/kvm: > > https://raw.github.com/gist/1029359/9f9a714ecee64802c08a3455971e410d5029370b/gistfile1.txt > > I'd ask for a brown paper bag if I wasn't so busy eating my hat at the moment. np, it happens. Is that still with QEMU with IDE emulation, cache=writethrough, and 128MB of guest memory? Does your raw driver support multiple parallel requests? It doesn't look like it does from how I read the code. At some point, I'd be happy to help ya'll do some benchmarking against QEMU. It would be very useful to compare as we have some ugly things in QEMU that we've never quite been able to determine how much they affect performance. Having an alternative implementation to benchmark against would be quite helpful. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Pekka > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html