From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Apr 24 13:03:37 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@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 E4A675FF466 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:03:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jl@burgh.net) Received: from snoop.burgh.net (snoop.burghcom.com [209.114.176.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FSBDR2W6hz4vDv for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:03:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jl@burgh.net) Received: from athlon.burgh.net (pool-98-111-235-51.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [98.111.235.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jl@burgh.net) by snoop.burgh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57DCA47 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:03:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 snoop.burgh.net 57DCA47 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=burgh.net; s=default; t=1619269405; bh=H7x1h897BaFM92VKkreSRaUhZ2fdqFoFjPctwKC3FEg=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=xTKboCmAwNBFDoX+PQjS2AM72AnLQdlTt8lstHk7bu+qu8AtRJb9HEjEAgFrgZTD6 0npFAKXX/SmagsR3q9+KsD8/tftPd8L3WLEyLEReljja7W0T3Dl9hUIt96wXwgW4Jk mWMLvcUb4mk6QNRuKodga2l4VLdh8ElNtVdF5GcU= Subject: Re: FreeBSD 13.0 terrible performance in KVM To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: From: Jeff Love Message-ID: <1699dc93-7070-e5f0-8fc1-2ca4f77db3ac@burgh.net> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:03:22 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Burgh-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Burgh-MailScanner-ID: 57DCA47.A0E6C X-Burgh-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Burgh-MailScanner-From: jl@burgh.net X-Spam-Status: No X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FSBDR2W6hz4vDv X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=burgh.net header.s=default header.b=xTKboCmA; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of jl@burgh.net designates 209.114.176.68 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jl@burgh.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.30 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[209.114.176.68:from:127.0.2.255]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[98.111.235.51:received]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[burgh.net]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[burgh.net:s=default]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[burgh.net:-]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[209.114.176.68:from]; ASN(0.00)[asn:17054, ipnet:209.114.128.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-stable]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 18:25:05 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 13:03:37 -0000 I'm running 12.2 and 13.0 on KVM using virtio and zfs. I am not having disk I/O issues. Jeff Love On 4/24/21 5:25 AM, dashdruid via freebsd-stable wrote: > Hello List, > > I hope some other folks out there running FreeBSD on KVM as well. I set up a base VM while doing so I noticed that the disk operations are very slow. Many times I edit a file in vim or try to run a command there is a huge lag. > > I use UFS as the root filesystem. To have something to compare it with I have tested it against an OpenBSD 6.6 VM on the same host, same hardware. both have 1 vCPU and 1GB of ram, 20GB virtual disk (they are exactly on the same physical disk no raid or anything to have a fair comparison). > > Here is an example simple file search time for a non-existent file: > > FreeBSD 13 > > time find / -name cacert.pem > > real 0m30.656s > user 0m0.516s > sys 0m3.938s > > Second run even worse > > real 2m38.618s > user 0m0.711s > sys 0m6.882s > > While on the OpenBSD VM I get > > time find / -name cacert.pem > > real 0m2.258s > user 0m0.290s > sys 0m1.970s > > The amount of data is about the same on both systems but I would not consider this a "slight" performance degradation. If the base system is so slow then imagine putting Apache and other servers on top of it. Did anyone run into this? > > Unless there is a definitive solution I will opt out to using other BSD variants. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.