xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Haigh <netwiz@crc.id.au>
To: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: 4.2.1: Poor write performance for DomU.
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:54:31 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5139A747.80703@crc.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51249C11.3050800@crc.id.au>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2336 bytes --]

On 20/02/2013 8:49 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 20/02/2013 7:49 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 20/02/2013 7:26 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On 20/02/13 03:10, Steven Haigh wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, please CC me in to any replies as I'm not a subscriber these
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> I've been trying to debug a problem with Xen 4.2.1 where I am unable to
>>>> achieve more than ~50Mb/sec sustained sequential write to a disk. The
>>>> DomU is configured as such:
>>>
>>> Since you mention 4.2.1 explicitly, is this a performance regression
>>> from previous versions? (4.2.0 or the 4.1 branch)
>>
>> This is actually a very good question. I've reinstalled my older
>> packages of Xen 4.1.3 back on the system. Rebooting into the new
>> hypervisor, then starting the single DomU again. Ran bonnie++ again on
>> the DomU:
>>
>> Still around 50Mb/sec - so this doesn't seem to be a regression, but
>> something else?
>
> I've actually done a bit of thinking about this... A recent thread on
> linux-raid kernel mailing list about Xen and DomU throughput made me
> revisit my setup. I know I used to be able to saturate GigE both ways
> (send and receive) to the samba share served by this DomU. This would
> mean I'd get at least 90-100Mbyte/sec. What exact config and kernel/xen
> versions this was as this point in time I cannot say.
>
> As such, I had a bit of a play and recreated my RAID6 with 64Kb chunk
> size. This seemed to make rebuild/resync speeds way worse - so I
> reverted to 128Kb chunk size.
>
> The benchmarks I am getting from the Dom0 is about what I'd expect - but
> I wouldn't expect to lose 130Mb/sec write speed to the phy:/ pass
> through of the LV.
>
>  From my known config where I could saturate the GigE connection, I have
> changed from kernel 2.6.32 (Jeremy's git repo) to the latest vanilla
> kernels - currently 3.7.9.
>
> My build of Xen 4.2.1 also has all of the recent security advisories
> patched as well. Although it is interesting to note that downgrading to
> Xen 4.1.2 made no difference to write speeds.
>

Just wondering if there is any further news or tests that I might be 
able to do on this?

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: netwiz@crc.id.au
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4240 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-08  8:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-20  2:10 4.2.1: Poor write performance for DomU Steven Haigh
2013-02-20  8:26 ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-02-20  8:49   ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20  9:49     ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20 10:12       ` Jan Beulich
2013-02-20 11:06         ` Andrew Cooper
2013-02-20 11:08           ` Steven Haigh
2013-02-20 12:48             ` Andrew Cooper
2013-02-20 13:18             ` Pasi Kärkkäinen
2013-03-08 20:42               ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-08  8:54       ` Steven Haigh [this message]
2013-03-08  9:43         ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-03-08  9:46           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-08  9:54             ` Roger Pau Monné
2013-03-08 20:49         ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-08 22:30           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-11 13:30             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-11 13:37               ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-12 13:04                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-03-12 14:08                   ` Steven Haigh
     [not found]                   ` <514EA337.7030303@crc.id.au>
     [not found]                     ` <514EA6B0.8010504@crc.id.au>
     [not found]                       ` <514EA741.7050403@crc.id.au>
2013-03-24  9:10                         ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-24  9:54                           ` Steven Haigh
2013-03-25  2:21                           ` Steven Haigh
2013-08-20 16:48                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-08-20 18:25                               ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-05  8:28                               ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-06 13:33                                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-09-06 23:06                                   ` Steven Haigh
2013-09-06 23:37                                     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk

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=5139A747.80703@crc.id.au \
    --to=netwiz@crc.id.au \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /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).