Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:49:28 +0200 From: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bhyve win-guest benchmark comparing Message-ID: <f5a78199-9306-bccc-606a-23c30f56b0f1@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <9e7f4c01-6cd1-4045-1a5b-69c804b3881b@omnilan.de> References: <9e7f4c01-6cd1-4045-1a5b-69c804b3881b@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f5a78199-9306-bccc-606a-23c30f56b0f1>