From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EAD5C00140 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53240 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGLr8-00056t-9E for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:48:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36848) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGLkf-0006mE-2p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:41:43 -0400 Received: from out1.migadu.com ([91.121.223.63]:64820) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGLkc-0006pq-Io for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:41:36 -0400 Message-ID: <1d1f7854-209a-a985-e266-633ca14609da@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1658846492; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uM3CH25gIo/Rm3FI9V6Bp39HKdQs8n0Zh5ABXp6DsfA=; b=ZLXijxQIARPu8czQTmAusYCAz8xAvtJuHIvV87qpAeRPzKEVxb4cZvqG2jWsOzgmKpv2lT 9WeIM92j40c10rEs8p8/d+Prujmw1bRw1T7LP6ePl3gLOipe0GWJmWI8G/f8H1TDBtHgl5 6E2ZTGsiqcQtrj2Ra73vL7lYVFLaBVE= Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:41:23 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Question about performance comparison between virtio-fs and virtio-blk Content-Language: en-US To: Vivek Goyal , Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel , virtio-fs@redhat.com References: <4f2c71a4-609e-6880-04d0-2eb127c55023@linux.dev> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Hao Xu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: linux.dev Received-SPF: pass client-ip=91.121.223.63; envelope-from=hao.xu@linux.dev; helo=out1.migadu.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 7/26/22 21:17, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 08:55:38AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 08:24, Hao Xu wrote: >>> I watched your presentation about virtiofs in 2020, >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIVOzTsGMMI&t=232s >>> >>> which is really helpful to me, but I have a question about the graph at >>> 3:53, could you give >>> >>> me more info about the test, like what tool you use for the test, if >>> it's fio, what is the parameters. >>> >>> I used fio to do randread test in a qemu box, but turns out the iops of >>> virtio-blk and virtio-fs are similar. >> > > Hi Hao, > > My impression in general is that virtio-blk is much faster than virtiofs. When testing virtio-blk, did you use the device directly or mount it and test against a file. > A simple macro test is do a kernel compilation and compare time taken > between the two. Good idea, I just tested with single file. Thanks, Hao > >> I have CCed Vivek Goyal, who has done more virtiofs benchmarking and >> might have ideas to share. >> >> The benchmarking tool was fio with the stated blocksize and I/O >> pattern. The benchmark was probably run with direct=1. Based on the >> virtio-blk numbers I think iodepth was greater than 1 but I don't have >> the exact fio job parameters. > > I had basically used fio jobs. I wrote some simple wrapper scripts to > run fio and parse and report numbers. > > https://github.com/rhvgoyal/virtiofs-tests > > I don't have data for virtio-blk but I do seem to have some comparison > numbers of virtiofs and virtio-9p. > > https://github.com/rhvgoyal/virtiofs-tests/tree/master/performance-results/feb-23-2021 > > Thanks > Vivek > >