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 322B2C43334 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60686 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGKW9-0006Me-PT for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:22:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46600) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGKR5-0003ht-RM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:17:21 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:35029) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGKR1-0001Qr-HJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:17:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1658841431; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WzVRu2JNbVeFMJk/JA/8HRz+Vmro896vzzYiDDCZO5c=; b=glsW2wyoJWrkxN8QAxypCoDu1JrOXAqzMaPAE9/KmO3U7A3topxTifX/u+QcMitGxim6Za +44vQetqom2clTu18IVZ+nVIci8reu8HWvW623D/9bOyl9QmZIsLsVHarvr1Yc7xvI28o4 uAOr1/bSNODaxeFBSMdqb4jX6pS6eUM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-192-C722-KfrMaCf6g3HlTWVmQ-1; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:17:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: C722-KfrMaCf6g3HlTWVmQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62837801755; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from horse.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3611415118; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451) id 2B63822341E; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:17:09 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Hao Xu , qemu-devel , virtio-fs@redhat.com Subject: Re: Question about performance comparison between virtio-fs and virtio-blk Message-ID: References: <4f2c71a4-609e-6880-04d0-2eb127c55023@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.7 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=vgoyal@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 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. A simple macro test is do a kernel compilation and compare time taken between the two. > 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