From owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Tue Aug 16 14:18:56 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE10BBC4F2 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:18:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=029c3005f=roger.pau@citrix.com) Received: from SMTP02.CITRIX.COM (smtp02.citrix.com [66.165.176.63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.citrix.com", Issuer "DigiCert SHA2 Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC55D1BFA for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=029c3005f=roger.pau@citrix.com) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="380415718" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:18:26 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= To: CC: Borja Marcos , Subject: Re: Is it me or is FreeBSD slower on Xen than Linux? Message-ID: <20160816141826.56mxsgx6e7rynxqg@mac> References: <2a0a5ae2821551935de329b8665834be@ultra-secure.de> <20160816100605.la63x2ju5bmtdqhl@mac> <20160816110759.6xlvxikw3tziahfd@mac> <20160816132938.d2i4u2y3scpzi2et@mac> <00D22384-BAA7-42E4-A486-4BE07562D011@sarenet.es> <8521aebaa093bcefe5956a71fd879140@ultra-secure.de> <872C5626-F58D-4F84-92AC-88B7352D1DDF@sarenet.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-06-11) X-DLP: MIA1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:18:56 -0000 On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:05:30PM +0200, rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote: > Am 2016-08-16 15:48, schrieb Borja Marcos: > > > On 16 Aug 2016, at 15:41, rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote: > > > > > > Am 2016-08-16 15:38, schrieb Borja Marcos: > > > > > > > > Maybe this is too obvious, my apologies in that case. But, how have > > > > the filesystems been > > > > created and mounted? Asynchronous? Synchronous? Journalling? > > > > Softupdates in the case of > > > > FreeBSD UFS? It can make quite a difference. > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD > > > > > > /dev/ada2p1 on /home/db (ufs, local, soft-updates) > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux: > > > /dev/mapper/system-lvm--home /home ext4 defaults > > > 0 2 > > > > > > > > > What does "defaults" mean, BTW? > > > > That’s the mother of the lamb, we use to say in Spain ;) > > > > I guess it depends on the particular distribution, not just on being > > ext4. Is there a tool similar to > > dumpfs on Linux? > > > Apparently, it's in > cat /proc/mounts > > /dev/mapper/system-lvm--tmp /tmp ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0 > /dev/mapper/system-lvm--var /var ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0 > /dev/mapper/system-lvm--home /home ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0 > /dev/mapper/system-lvm--varlog /var/log ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0 > > > > > > You can also experiment with the FreeBSD options, maybe it will be a > > quicker route. Try to mount as asynchronous. > > In case it makes a big difference, you got it. > > But I don't really want to mount it asyncronous. > Would it help to have journaling? > > Or is soft-updates already the "optimum"? I'm not saying it's not possible, but are you sure this slowdown is caused by the disk? It's certainly a possibility, but I would like to make sure it's caused by that before jumping into conclusions. Can you load the full database in RAM and perform the same test. TBH, I don't use MariaDB, so I'm not sure what's the best way to achieve this, but a quick search on google shows there are multiple ways. In any case, make sure with iostat that the database is not read from the disk. Roger.