From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sat May 4 10:11:52 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EF41589157 for ; Sat, 4 May 2019 10:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mx0.gentlemail.de (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4019282E7E for ; Sat, 4 May 2019 10:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from mh0.gentlemail.de (ezra.dcm1.omnilan.net [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a135]) by mx0.gentlemail.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x44ABfGB094100; Sat, 4 May 2019 12:11:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@omnilan.de) Received: from titan.inop.mo1.omnilan.net (s1.omnilan.de [217.91.127.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mh0.gentlemail.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3A95682; Sat, 4 May 2019 12:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: BSD11 vs BSD12 KVM performance To: "Bapat, Udayan" , "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" References: From: Harry Schmalzbauer Organization: OmniLAN Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 12:11:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mx0.gentlemail.de [IPv6:2a00:e10:2800::a130]); Sat, 04 May 2019 12:11:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: mx0.gentlemail.de; Sender-ip: ; Sender-helo: mh0.gentlemail.de; ) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4019282E7E X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@omnilan.de designates 2a00:e10:2800::a130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@omnilan.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.80 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[omnilan.de]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mx0.gentlemail.de]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.983,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; IP_SCORE(-3.51)[ip: (-9.20), ipnet: 2a00:e10:2800::/64(-4.67), asn: 25074(-3.68), country: DE(-0.01)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25074, ipnet:2a00:e10:2800::/64, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 May 2019 10:11:52 -0000 Am 02.05.2019 um 20:51 schrieb Bapat, Udayan: > Hi All, > > I work in performance team with NetApp, Inc. > > During qualification process of BSD11 as a guest, we observed that the cost of rdtsc call has magnified by 10x compared to BSD10. We are using qemu-2.10 that came as a default package in RH7.4. It appears that BSD11 was released before qemu-2.10 so I am not sure if we have any supportability issue and I would need to upgrade QEMU version. In what way, I can do more debugging around this? We are also experimenting with ESX and we didn’t see this issue there. I also could not find any performance benchmarking around BSD+QEMU/KVM. Hello, please clarify whether it is about FreeBSD-10 vs. FreeBSD-11, like the body tells, or FreeBSD-11 vs. FreeBSD-12, like the topic tells. Can't help in any case regading the QMEU question, unfortunately. -harry