From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Mon Apr 22 18:57:11 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 A24A915A1ABD for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA187194F for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id F20E415A1ABA; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: 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 DFB6215A1AB9 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796DA7194D for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5412B26 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x3MIv9TP004234 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x3MIv9an004233 for virtualization@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 237429] bhyve: Performance regression after 12 upgrade Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: rgrimes@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:57:12 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237429 --- Comment #10 from Rodney W. Grimes --- (In reply to doctor from comment #9) > 1) In case I wish to expand to say 64G RAM I can do so without trying to = rebuild the server. Ok, valid, thanks for clarifing. > 2)Running UFS not ZFS. Did I forget to mention this? Your system shows it has loaded ZFS: ZFS filesystem version: 5 ZFS storage pool version: features support (5000) you can say your not using it, but your dmesg says differently. > 3) In 11.2 There were not problems. in 12.0 These problems suddenly mani= fested. Are you certain that the only change is that of from 11.2 to 12.0, or did some other change, perhaps a change not considered is the cause of issues. I am simply trying to identify what performance would be low on 12.0 independent of any prior status. > 4) I was able to put up to 8 VM in 11.2 and below without issue. 8 VM's with 4G each on 11.2 with 16G of memory, I do not accept this as tru= e, that is 32G of memory commit + host memory needs. That should of been tras= hing itself unless those 8vm's are pretty well idle --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.=