From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Coleman Subject: Re: windows domU disk performance graph comparing hvm vs stubdom vs pv drivers Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:14:54 -0500 Message-ID: <5411dbdc1002220914m2cf15fack76aed42a4fca1a32@mail.gmail.com> References: <5411dbdc1002191441q4becdba9o61168bc986533e6@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2/22/10, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Keith Coleman wrote: >> I am posting this to xen-devel instead of -users because it paints an >> incomplete picture that shouldn't be the basis for deciding how to run >> production systems. >> >> This graph shows the performance under a webserver disk IO workload at >> different queue depths. It compares the 4 main IO methods for windows >> guests that will be available in the upcoming xen 4.0.0 and 3.4.3 >> releases: pure HVM, stub domains, gplpv drivers, and xcp winpv >> drivers. >> >> The gplpv and xcp winpv drivers have comparable performance with gplpv >> being slightly faster. Both pv drivers are considerably faster than >> pure hvm or stub domains. Stub domain performance was about even with >> HVM which is lower than we were expecting. We tried a different cpu >> pinning in "Stubdom B" with little impact. >> > > What disk backend are you using? phy, LV Keith Coleman