Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "6a27b656fc".
2015 Dec 01
2
[RFC PATCH 0/9] vhost-nvme: new qemu nvme backend using nvme target
> What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme?
What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported
by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc).
To me, the advantage of nvme is that it provides more than decent performance on
unmodified Windows guests, and thanks to your vendor extension can be used
on Linux as well with speeds comparable to virtio-blk. So it's potentially
a very good choice for a cloud provider that wants to suppor...
2015 Dec 01
2
[RFC PATCH 0/9] vhost-nvme: new qemu nvme backend using nvme target
> What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme?
What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported
by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc).
To me, the advantage of nvme is that it provides more than decent performance on
unmodified Windows guests, and thanks to your vendor extension can be used
on Linux as well with speeds comparable to virtio-blk. So it's potentially
a very good choice for a cloud provider that wants to suppor...
2015 Dec 01
1
[RFC PATCH 0/9] vhost-nvme: new qemu nvme backend using nvme target
On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote:
> qemu-nvme: 148MB/s
> vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s
> qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s
> virtio-scsi: 296MB/s
> virtio-blk: 344MB/s
>
> "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance.
I'd expect it to be on par of qemu-nvme with ioeventfd but the question
is: why should it be better? For
2015 Dec 02
0
[RFC PATCH 0/9] vhost-nvme: new qemu nvme backend using nvme target
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 11:59 -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme?
>
> What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported
> by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc).
I expect performance would be better.
Seems google cloud VM uses both nvme and virtio-scsi. Not sure if
virtio-blk is also used.
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/disks/local-ssd#runscript
>
> To me, the advantage of nvme is that it provides more than decent performance on
> unmo...
2015 Dec 01
1
[RFC PATCH 0/9] vhost-nvme: new qemu nvme backend using nvme target
On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote:
> qemu-nvme: 148MB/s
> vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s
> qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s
> virtio-scsi: 296MB/s
> virtio-blk: 344MB/s
>
> "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance.
I'd expect it to be on par of qemu-nvme with ioeventfd but the question
is: why should it be better? For