From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May  9 16:57:51 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 681D5753
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>; Sat,  9 May 2015 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.openmailbox.org (mail.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.34])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296D21B47
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>; Sat,  9 May 2015 16:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D2C2E080F
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>;
 Sat,  9 May 2015 18:49:47 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=openmailbox.org;
 h=user-agent:message-id:subject:subject:from:from:date:date
 :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type
 :mime-version:received:received; s=openmailbox; t=1431190185;
 bh=ao3NXlbQC6Rq1iyPEURnf2kzL9FNmylmOVuBEUoyklk=; b=SAtvlZx/1q66
 SaFtlBTcY/mgVwKU3Io2u62itksaJedW5gAJ7TCMjmorRlbD1YMJis0wVj3hMmXt
 lCuh34M56Y2OUJoNrJHmu+g/AYMKLQpB+VhxgPR9q4EbY5bOFfM5HqL5ALPPC7Xi
 b6M258Yx6o9GcipTBt6r+9+3X+odGk0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at openmailbox.org
Received: from mail.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.34])
 by localhost (mail.openmailbox.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id UcVPiM7OYkPv for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>;
 Sat,  9 May 2015 18:49:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from www.openmailbox.org (mail.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.34])
 by mail.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909B72E0804
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>;
 Sat,  9 May 2015 18:49:45 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 22:19:45 +0530
From: Tinker <tinkr@openmailbox.org>
To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
Subject: Is the BHyVe guest as suitable for high-performance disk IO as the
 =?UTF-8?Q?host=3F?=
Message-ID: <7dd04a4cec612d18110a00b9020fd948@openmailbox.org>
X-Sender: tinkr@openmailbox.org
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports."
 <freebsd-virtualization.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 16:57:51 -0000

Hi!

For an environment with very heavy parallell IO, should the performance 
be just as good in a BHyVe guest as in the FreeBSD host environment?

What I thought of is that I guess within the host environment, the 
storage subsystem should have all kinds of optimizations like an 
internal work queue that pushes lots of work alinearly/asynchronously to 
the disk controller and this way allows it, in turn, to give all its 
performance.

Does the virtualized disk interface carry over all that goodness to the 
guest?

(https://wiki.freebsd.org/bhyve seems to say yes, presuming you 
configure BHyVe to run the virtual disk in AHCI mode?)

Thanks!
Tinker