From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 19 01:10:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31FF3FE for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 01:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ea0-x22f.google.com (mail-ea0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7423610A7 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 01:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z10so2391166ead.6 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:10:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FlqF8V1aZCSjYgDn/EWiiDPi8aed2kgY1T1O42rMx+8=; b=iH7Yb6PcZQosQw+1TN2zlpRPBHyI+RYb3lR/pbDvuFT+UWLiIRjUNopvvB/d5IkhQQ ote1wNgqcgDj/1s5JQNLBE/vB4I/Gb+zR5fmougRoCHHeXoOCk8yaxXGq2lNVN3N2qW8 lmR1Yom1QTYXhDArDV2mIPPRDZpq0oQAle3QFl3Gw3MkVFa0ZHD6pxCE/4PXjAxfuH1V iDVJ2jS8elI2IyLb3+/Xjvh4KeR/30Z18fOGhb1qQmvEWYh4Pgqnf+xogK2UbVYO1ckk hhTWoa6LrfXugNb2ERsbmxyPANXk7SpOkm1GWZDArKCXMUzLEfN0Md5VYPvbHEjiT4Wl H86g== X-Received: by 10.14.109.137 with SMTP id s9mr7068462eeg.6.1390093814967; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.109] ([91.176.87.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm39542737een.13.2014.01.18.17.10.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:10:14 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: Xen PVHVM with FreeBSD10 Guest From: Sydney Meyer In-Reply-To: <52D94E74.8000401@citrix.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:10:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <76E20919-2457-407F-9564-7A032658C515@googlemail.com> References: <9DF57091-9957-452D-8A15-C2267F66ABEC@googlemail.com> <52D81009.6050603@citrix.com> <51F93577-E5A2-4237-9EDD-A89DDA5FC428@gmail.com> <52D8F301.2080701@citrix.com> <52D94E74.8000401@citrix.com> To: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 01:10:18 -0000 Hello Roger, here are the results. I=92ve tested FreeBSD 9.2, 10.0-RC5 in conjunction = with XEN PVHVM,XEN-QEMU-DM, KVM-VirtIO and the bare metal performance of = the hosts, every run respectively with file IO via raw images and block = IO via LVM volumes. Each VM ran with 1GB of memory and 1 VCPU. The = results are the average of 3 consecutive runs with bonnie, writing each = time the double size of the hosts memory. Xen 4.1 with Linux 3.2 Dom0 = and QEMU 0.10.2 on Intel i3 4310T / 8 GB, KVM with Linux 3.11 on Intel = i7 860 / 12 GB. Please keep in mind that these results are more of an =93subjective=94 = impression rather a scientific comparison held under the exact same = conditions, etc. http://pastebin.com/pUZfXda7 +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ | OS | HV | Disk | IO | Write MB/s | Read MB/s | +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ | 9.2 | Xen | File | QEMU | 60,5 | 111,2 | | 9.2 | Xen | File | PV | 43,2 | 106,5 | | 9.2 | Xen | Block | QEMU | 49,4 | 91,0 | | 9.2 | Xen | Block | PV | 72,9 | 100,4 | | 10.0 | Xen | File | PV | 38,6 | 107,2 | | 10.0 | Xen | Block | PV | 72,6 | 99,8 | | 9.2 | KVM | File | VirtIO | 40,6 | 138,1 | | 9.2 | KVM | Block | VirtIO | 44,5 | 131,6 | | 10.0 | KVM | File | VirtIO | 38,1 | 131,4 | | 10.0 | KVM | Block | VirtIO | 43,2 | 134,7 | | Xen Host | | | | 90,1 | 109,0 | | KVM Host | | | | 93,4 | 126,1 | +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ As you can see, there are no leads to my inital observation (Emulated = Block IO =93faster=94 than PVHVM Block IO). I will take a closer look = what went wrong first time, probably some sort of caching issue.=20 Anyhow, i=92ve read that you have been working together with others to = bring PVHVM support into GENERIC, so i wanted to thank you and all the = other developers for making FreeBSD 10.0 another great release of this = rock solid, awesome Operating System. Native Xen PV- and therefore freebsd-update support are a very big plus = in our evergoing fight against management over the choice of weapons. Cheers, S. On 17.01.2014, at 16:38, Roger Pau Monn=E9 wrote: > On 17/01/14 10:17, Sydney Meyer wrote: >> I=92m doing some benchmarks with bonnie and dd on the Variations = 9.2/10.0;PVHVM/VirtIO;fileio/blockio. I will post the results here to = this thread. >=20 > By VirtIO I guess you mean emulated IO? That sounds great, I'm eager = to > see the results :) >=20 > Roger.