From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIii1-0000m8-Db
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:33:13 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MIihy-0000jM-00
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:33:13 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40019 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIihx-0000jI-Q1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:33:09 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53311)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1MIihx-0001Ny-C4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:33:09 -0400
Message-ID: <4A3F79C0.6000804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:32:00 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block-raw: Make cache=off default again
References: <1245669483-7076-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<20090622113524.GA13583@lst.de>	<4A3F6EA3.2010303@redhat.com>
	<4A3F7139.20401@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A3F7139.20401@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Avi Kivity schrieb:
> On 06/22/2009 02:44 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> I haven't done real benchmarks for some time, but my simple test cases
>> like "run mke2fs on an empty image" have shown great improvement (at
>> least on IDE, for virtio I haven't understood yet what influences the
>> size of its requests - you should have received a private mail from Dor
>> about this). Possibly we could even enable cache=off for qcow2 now.
>>
>> IIUC, you have a nice setup to measure block performance now. Maybe
>> you'd like to let it run with qcow2 and cache=wb/none?
>>    
> 
> Were your refcount-combining patches merged?  I don't see them, and 
> performance will suck without them.

They were merged some weeks ago, at least if a980c98c is what you mean.
I don't have any patches for inclusion that aren't merged yet (except
for this one, obviously).

Kevin