Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:23:45 +0000 From: Michael Reifenberger <Michael@reifenberger.com> To: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bhyve win-guest benchmark comparing Message-ID: <20200419172345.Horde.alwm2Bn67wrcUt5a0zVjQ9f@app.eeeit.de> In-Reply-To: <f5a78199-9306-bccc-606a-23c30f56b0f1@omnilan.de> References: <9e7f4c01-6cd1-4045-1a5b-69c804b3881b@omnilan.de> <f5a78199-9306-bccc-606a-23c30f56b0f1@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, r358848 has been MFC'd to stable/12 Zitat von Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de>: > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200419172345.Horde.alwm2Bn67wrcUt5a0zVjQ9f>