qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
To: Lukas Straub <lukasstraub2@web.de>
Cc: Zhang Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>,
	zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com
Subject: Re: colo: qemu 4.2.0 vs. qemu 5.0.0-rc2 performance regression
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:34:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200427103432.GH2923@work-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413153432.224e46b6@luklap>

* Lukas Straub (lukasstraub2@web.de) wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:16:54 +0200
> Lukas Straub <lukasstraub2@web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Everyone,
> > I did some Benchmarking with iperf3 and memtester (to dirty some guest memory)
> > of colo performance in qemu 4.2.0 and in qemu 5.0.0-rc2
> > with my bugfixes on top.( https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-04/msg01432.html )
> > 
> > I have taken the average over 4 runs.
> > Client-to-server tcp bandwidth rose slightly from ~83.98 Mbit/s to ~89.40 Mbits.
> > Server-to-client tcp bandwidth fell from ~9.73 Mbit/s to ~1.79 Mbit/s.
> > Client-to-server udp bandwidth stayed the same at 1.05 Mbit/s
> > and jitter rose from ~5.12 ms to ~10.77 ms.
> > Server-to-client udp bandwidth fell from ~380.5 Kbit/s to ~33.6 Kbit/s
> > and jitter rose from ~41.74 ms to ~83976.15 ms (!).
> > 
> > I haven't looked closely into it, but i think
> > 0393031a16735835a441b6d6e0495a1bd14adb90 "COLO: Optimize memory back-up process"
> > is the culprint as it reduces vm downtime for the checkpoints but increases
> > the overall checkpoint time and we can only release miscompared primary packets
> > after the checkpoint is completely finished.
> > 
> > Another thing that I noticed: With 4.2.0, the secondary qemu uses thrice
> > the amount of gest memory. With 5.0.0-rc2 it's just double the amount of
> > guest memory. So maybe the ram cache isn't working properly?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Lukas Straub
> 
> Hmm,
> I looked at my test again and saw that the results where very noisy, so qemu 5.0.0-rc2
> being slower was just a coincidence. I did increase the test time and the results are 
> more meaningful now. Now qemu 5.0.0-rc2 is around the same speed and still faster
> in the client-to-server tcp case.
> 
> Sorry for the noise.

Is it back to using 3x RAM in the secondary?

Dave

> 
> Regards,
> Lukas Straub


--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK



  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-27 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-11 17:16 colo: qemu 4.2.0 vs. qemu 5.0.0-rc2 performance regression Lukas Straub
2020-04-13  1:09 ` 答复: " Zhanghailiang
2020-04-13 13:34 ` Lukas Straub
2020-04-27 10:34   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert [this message]
2020-04-27 10:52     ` Lukas Straub

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=20200427103432.GH2923@work-vm \
    --to=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=chen.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=lukasstraub2@web.de \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=quintela@redhat.com \
    --cc=zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).