Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:10:12 +0100 From: Sydney Meyer <meyer.sydney@googlemail.com> To: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Xen PVHVM with FreeBSD10 Guest Message-ID: <76E20919-2457-407F-9564-7A032658C515@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <52D94E74.8000401@citrix.com> References: <9DF57091-9957-452D-8A15-C2267F66ABEC@googlemail.com> <52D81009.6050603@citrix.com> <51F93577-E5A2-4237-9EDD-A89DDA5FC428@gmail.com> <F672F9F6-7F85-4315-AFA0-EA18527A1893@googlemail.com> <52D8F301.2080701@citrix.com> <A5ECBAEA-8E55-4D95-87D0-5FFC1D559BA3@googlemail.com> <52D94E74.8000401@citrix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Roger, here are the results. I=92ve tested FreeBSD 9.2, 10.0-RC5 in conjunction = with XEN PVHVM,XEN-QEMU-DM, KVM-VirtIO and the bare metal performance of = the hosts, every run respectively with file IO via raw images and block = IO via LVM volumes. Each VM ran with 1GB of memory and 1 VCPU. The = results are the average of 3 consecutive runs with bonnie, writing each = time the double size of the hosts memory. Xen 4.1 with Linux 3.2 Dom0 = and QEMU 0.10.2 on Intel i3 4310T / 8 GB, KVM with Linux 3.11 on Intel = i7 860 / 12 GB. Please keep in mind that these results are more of an =93subjective=94 = impression rather a scientific comparison held under the exact same = conditions, etc. http://pastebin.com/pUZfXda7 +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ | OS | HV | Disk | IO | Write MB/s | Read MB/s | +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ | 9.2 | Xen | File | QEMU | 60,5 | 111,2 | | 9.2 | Xen | File | PV | 43,2 | 106,5 | | 9.2 | Xen | Block | QEMU | 49,4 | 91,0 | | 9.2 | Xen | Block | PV | 72,9 | 100,4 | | 10.0 | Xen | File | PV | 38,6 | 107,2 | | 10.0 | Xen | Block | PV | 72,6 | 99,8 | | 9.2 | KVM | File | VirtIO | 40,6 | 138,1 | | 9.2 | KVM | Block | VirtIO | 44,5 | 131,6 | | 10.0 | KVM | File | VirtIO | 38,1 | 131,4 | | 10.0 | KVM | Block | VirtIO | 43,2 | 134,7 | | Xen Host | | | | 90,1 | 109,0 | | KVM Host | | | | 93,4 | 126,1 | +----------+-----+-------+--------+------------+-----------+ As you can see, there are no leads to my inital observation (Emulated = Block IO =93faster=94 than PVHVM Block IO). I will take a closer look = what went wrong first time, probably some sort of caching issue.=20 Anyhow, i=92ve read that you have been working together with others to = bring PVHVM support into GENERIC, so i wanted to thank you and all the = other developers for making FreeBSD 10.0 another great release of this = rock solid, awesome Operating System. Native Xen PV- and therefore freebsd-update support are a very big plus = in our evergoing fight against management over the choice of weapons. Cheers, S. On 17.01.2014, at 16:38, Roger Pau Monn=E9 <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote: > On 17/01/14 10:17, Sydney Meyer wrote: >> I=92m doing some benchmarks with bonnie and dd on the Variations = 9.2/10.0;PVHVM/VirtIO;fileio/blockio. I will post the results here to = this thread. >=20 > By VirtIO I guess you mean emulated IO? That sounds great, I'm eager = to > see the results :) >=20 > Roger.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76E20919-2457-407F-9564-7A032658C515>