From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sun Apr 19 17:23:53 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC84827C00F for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Michael@reifenberger.com) Received: from app.eeeit.de (app.eeeit.de [188.68.43.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494xWX4wrGz4dXP for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Michael@reifenberger.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mike@reifenberger.com) by app.eeeit.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 858723A0E3; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 19:23:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ppp-93-104-85-201.dynamic.mnet-online.de (ppp-93-104-85-201.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.85.201]) by app.eeeit.de (Horde Framework) with HTTPS; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:45 +0000 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20200419172345.Horde.alwm2Bn67wrcUt5a0zVjQ9f@app.eeeit.de> From: Michael Reifenberger To: Harry Schmalzbauer Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bhyve win-guest benchmark comparing References: <9e7f4c01-6cd1-4045-1a5b-69c804b3881b@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Horde Application Framework 5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 494xWX4wrGz4dXP X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of Michael@reifenberger.com has no SPF policy when checking 188.68.43.176) smtp.mailfrom=Michael@reifenberger.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.86 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.89)[-0.887,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.75)[-0.748,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[reifenberger.com]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:197540, ipnet:188.68.32.0/20, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.13)[asn: 197540(-0.63), country: DE(-0.02)]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[201.85.104.93.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.10] 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: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:53 -0000 Hi, r358848 has been MFC'd to stable/12 Zitat von Harry Schmalzbauer : > Am 22.10.2018 um 13:26 schrieb Harry Schmalzbauer: > … >> >> Test-Runs: >> Each hypervisor had only the one bench-guest running, no other >> tasks/guests were running besides system's native standard processes. >> Since the time between powering up the guest and finishing logon >> differed notably (~5s vs. ~20s) from one host to the other, I did a >> quick synthetic IO-Test beforehand. >> I'm using IOmeter since heise.de published a great test pattern >> called IOmix – about 18 years ago I guess.  This access pattern has >> always perfectly reflected the system performance for human >> computer usage with non-caculation-centric applications, and still >> is my favourite, despite throughput and latency changed by some >> orders of manitudes during the last decade (and I had defined >> something for "fio" which mimics IOmix and shows reasonable >> relational results; but I'm still prefering IOmeter for homogenous >> IO benchmarking). >> >> The results is about factor 7 :-( >> ~3800iops&69MB/s (CPU-guest-usage 42%IOmeter+12%irq) >>                 vs. >> ~29000iops&530MB/s (CPU-guest-usage 11%IOmeter+19%irq) >> >> >>     [with debug kernel and debug-malloc, numbers are 3000iops&56MB/s, >>      virtio-blk instead of ahci,hd: results in 5660iops&104MB/s >> with non-debug kernel >>      – much better, but even higher CPU load and still factor 4 slower] >> >> What I don't understand is, why the IOmeter process differs that >> much in CPU utilization!?!  It's the same binary on the same OS >> (guest) with the same OS-driver and the same underlying hardware – >> "just" the AHCI emulation and the vmm differ... > > I repeated this test with a slightly different device backend > (Samsung 850pro SSD on mps(4) instead of mfid(4)). > After applying r358848 to stable/12, the numbers changed > dramatically.0 on the same haswell based Xeon E3 platform. > > With the single SSD, the IOmeter numbers for ESXi as host drop > from ~29000iops&530MB/s to ~11000/205MB/s. >     But the numbers for bhyve as host > raise from ~3800iops&69MB/s to ~8800/160MB/s at the same time!!! > > So there's still a penalty of ~20% for ahci-bhyve vs. ahci-esx, but > this is a enourmous improvement. > Please don't skip the MFC for r358848! > > Thanks a lot for all the work! > > -harry > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Gruß --- Michael Reifenberger