Stefano Stabellini
2010-Dec-10 16:45 UTC
[Xen-devel] qemu VS tapdisk2 VS blkback benchmarks
Hi all, as promised I run some simple benchmarks using tapdisk2 and the new qemu as disk backends. If you are in a hurry skip to the last section to see the test results. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS --------------------- In order to reproduce these results you need to use the new qemu with linux aio and O_DIRECT as disk backend: - apply the libxl patches that Anthony sent to the list a little while ago; - compile qemu with linux aio support, you might need few hacks to work around limitations of the glic/libaio installed in your system; - add BDRV_O_NOCACHE|BDRV_O_NATIVE_AIO to the flags used by qemu to open the disks; - some gntdev fixes to allow aio and O_DIRECT on granted pages, not yet sent to the list (but soon). TEST HARDWARE ------------- I am using a not so new testbox with a 64bit 2.6.37 dom0 with 752MB of ram. The guest is a 64 bit PV Lenny guest with a 2.6.37 upstream kernel and 512MB of ram. Other info about the host follows: kontiki:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 6 model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.00GHz stepping : 2 cpu MHz : 3000.014 cache size : 2048 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 6 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr mca cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni est cid cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm arat bogomips : 6000.02 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 128 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 6 model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.00GHz stepping : 2 cpu MHz : 3000.014 cache size : 2048 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 6 wp : yes flags : fpu de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr mca cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni est cid cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm arat bogomips : 6000.02 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 128 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: kontiki:~# smartctl -a /dev/sda Model Family: Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 series Device Model: HDT722516DLA380 Serial Number: VDN71BTCDDVR6G Firmware Version: V43OA91A User Capacity: 164,696,555,520 bytes Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] ATA Version is: 7 ATA Standard is: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 1 Local Time is: Fri Dec 10 16:07:57 2010 GMT SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled TEST RESULTS ------------ The test is simple: write 1GB of data to disk and measure bandwidth and cpu usage. - tapdisk2 on raw file bandwidth: 32MB/s average cpu usage: 22% - qemu on raw file bandwidth: 33MB/s average cpu usage: 12% - blkback on LVM bandwidth: 39MB/s - qemu on LVM bandwidth: 38MB/s CONCLUSIONS ----------- Qemu beats tapdisk2 on raw files (the bandwidth is the same but the cpu usage is lower). Qemu has similar performances to blkback on LVM from the bandwidth perspective, but I didn''t measure the cpu usage in that case. Cheers, Stefano _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Daniel Stodden
2010-Dec-10 18:32 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] qemu VS tapdisk2 VS blkback benchmarks
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 11:45 -0500, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> Hi all, > as promised I run some simple benchmarks using tapdisk2 and the new qemu > as disk backends. > If you are in a hurry skip to the last section to see the test results.Interesting. I''ll look into it when the userspace stuff is working. Thanks! Daniel> > SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS > --------------------- > In order to reproduce these results you need to use the new qemu with > linux aio and O_DIRECT as disk backend: > > - apply the libxl patches that Anthony sent to the list a little while ago; > > - compile qemu with linux aio support, you might need few hacks to work > around limitations of the glic/libaio installed in your system; > > - add BDRV_O_NOCACHE|BDRV_O_NATIVE_AIO to the flags used by qemu to open > the disks; > > - some gntdev fixes to allow aio and O_DIRECT on granted pages, not yet > sent to the list (but soon). > > > > > TEST HARDWARE > ------------- > I am using a not so new testbox with a 64bit 2.6.37 dom0 with 752MB of ram. > The guest is a 64 bit PV Lenny guest with a 2.6.37 upstream kernel and 512MB of ram. > Other info about the host follows: > > kontiki:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 15 > model : 6 > model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.00GHz > stepping : 2 > cpu MHz : 3000.014 > cache size : 2048 KB > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 6 > wp : yes > flags : fpu de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr mca cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni est cid cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm arat > bogomips : 6000.02 > clflush size : 64 > cache_alignment : 128 > address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual > power management: > > processor : 1 > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 15 > model : 6 > model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.00GHz > stepping : 2 > cpu MHz : 3000.014 > cache size : 2048 KB > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 6 > wp : yes > flags : fpu de tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr mca cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni est cid cx16 hypervisor lahf_lm arat > bogomips : 6000.02 > clflush size : 64 > cache_alignment : 128 > address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual > power management: > > > kontiki:~# smartctl -a /dev/sda > Model Family: Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 series > Device Model: HDT722516DLA380 > Serial Number: VDN71BTCDDVR6G > Firmware Version: V43OA91A > User Capacity: 164,696,555,520 bytes > Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show] > ATA Version is: 7 > ATA Standard is: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 1 > Local Time is: Fri Dec 10 16:07:57 2010 GMT > SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. > SMART support is: Enabled > > > > > > > TEST RESULTS > ------------ > The test is simple: write 1GB of data to disk and measure bandwidth > and cpu usage. > > - tapdisk2 on raw file > bandwidth: 32MB/s > average cpu usage: 22% > > - qemu on raw file > bandwidth: 33MB/s > average cpu usage: 12% > > - blkback on LVM > bandwidth: 39MB/s > > - qemu on LVM > bandwidth: 38MB/s > > > > > CONCLUSIONS > ----------- > Qemu beats tapdisk2 on raw files (the bandwidth is the same but the cpu > usage is lower). > Qemu has similar performances to blkback on LVM from the bandwidth > perspective, but I didn''t measure the cpu usage in that case. > > > Cheers, > > Stefano > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Stefano Stabellini
2010-Dec-10 18:43 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] qemu VS tapdisk2 VS blkback benchmarks
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Daniel Stodden wrote:> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 11:45 -0500, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Hi all, > > as promised I run some simple benchmarks using tapdisk2 and the new qemu > > as disk backends. > > If you are in a hurry skip to the last section to see the test results. > > Interesting. I''ll look into it when the userspace stuff is working. >I have a patch series almost ready to fix aio/O_DIRECT from userspace, I''ll post it early next week. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Shriram Rajagopalan
2010-Dec-11 20:16 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] qemu VS tapdisk2 VS blkback benchmarks
I am assuming when you said "blkback over lvm", you used "phy:/dev/..." format. do you have any figures on tapdisk2 over lvm? [wherein you would use "tap2:aio:/dev/..." ] shriram -- perception is but an offspring of its own self _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Stefano Stabellini
2010-Dec-13 13:45 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] qemu VS tapdisk2 VS blkback benchmarks
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:> I am assuming when you said "blkback over lvm", you > used "phy:/dev/..." format. > do you have any figures on tapdisk2 over lvm? > [wherein you would use "tap2:aio:/dev/..." ]About 37MB/s. However both tapdisk2 and qemu performances on lvm seem to degrade after the first 100MB of data transfer to less than 30 MB/s, not sure why. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Maybe Matching Threads
- tapdisk2 segfaults with xen-unstable+linux-2.6-pvops
- xen 4.1.1 + 3.0.0-rc5 dom0 + blktap2
- Will tapdisk2 dispatch requests from different DomUs?
- segfaulting tapdisk2 process leads to kernel oops
- Creating a vm with a non-existent /dev/mapper/ tap2 device effectively hangs dom0 system