virtio disk slower than IDE?
I just tried paravirtualized virtio block devices, and my tests show that they are approximately 30% slower than emulated IDE devices. I'm guessing this isn't normal. Is this a known issue or am I likely to have mosconfigured something? I'm using 64-bit RHEL/CentOS 5 (both host and guest).
Thanks.
Gordan
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
I just tried paravirtualized virtio block devices, and my tests show that they are approximately 30% slower than emulated IDE devices. I'm guessing this isn't normal. Is this a known issue or am I likely to have mosconfigured something? I'm using 64-bit RHEL/CentOS 5 (both host and guest).
Please try to change the io scheduler on the host to io scheduler, it should boost your performance back.
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks.
Gordan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 8 lines · Dor Laor
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
I just tried paravirtualized virtio block devices, and my tests show that they are approximately 30% slower than emulated IDE devices. I'm guessing this isn't normal. Is this a known issue or am I likely to have mosconfigured something? I'm using 64-bit RHEL/CentOS 5 (both host and guest).
Please try to change the io scheduler on the host to io scheduler, it should boost your performance back.
I presume you mean the deadline io scheduler. I tried that (kernel parameter elevator=deadline) and it made no measurable difference compared to the cfq scheduler.
Gordan
Quoted 8 lines · Gordan Bobic
Quoted 7 lines · Dor Laor
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
I just tried paravirtualized virtio block devices, and my tests show that they are approximately 30% slower than emulated IDE devices. I'm guessing this isn't normal. Is this a known issue or am I likely to have mosconfigured something? I'm using 64-bit RHEL/CentOS 5 (both host and guest).
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Please try to change the io scheduler on the host to io scheduler, it should boost your performance back.
I presume you mean the deadline io scheduler. I tried that (kernel parameter elevator=deadline) and it made no measurable difference compared to the cfq scheduler.
What version of kvm do you use? Is it rhel5.4?
Can you post the qemu cmdline and the perf test in the guest?
Lastly, do you use cache=wb on qemu? it's just a fun mode, we use cache=off only.
Quoted 6 lines
Gordan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 9 lines · Dor Laor
Quoted 8 lines · Gordan Bobic
Quoted 7 lines · Dor Laor
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
I just tried paravirtualized virtio block devices, and my tests show that they are approximately 30% slower than emulated IDE devices. I'm guessing this isn't normal. Is this a known issue or am I likely to have mosconfigured something? I'm using 64-bit RHEL/CentOS 5 (both host and guest).
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Please try to change the io scheduler on the host to io scheduler, it should boost your performance back.
I presume you mean the deadline io scheduler. I tried that (kernel parameter elevator=deadline) and it made no measurable difference compared to the cfq scheduler.
What version of kvm do you use? Is it rhel5.4?
It's RHEL 5.4.
$ rpm -qa | grep -i kvm kmod-kvm-83-105.el5_4.9 kvm-83-105.el5_4.9
Quoted 1 line
Can you post the qemu cmdline and the perf test in the guest?
Here is what is in the libvirt log:
For IDE emulation:
LC_ALL=C PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin HOME=/root USER=root LOGNAME=root /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -S -M pc -m 2048 -smp 4 -name RHEL_5_x86-64 -uuid cb44b2c5-e64b-848f-77af-f8e7f02fa2ca -no-kvm-pit-reinjection -monitor pty -pidfile /var/run/libvirt/qemu//RHEL_5_x86-64.pid -boot c -drive file=/var/lib/libvirt/images/RHEL_5_x86-64.img,if=ide,index=0,boot=on -net nic,macaddr=54:52:00:5a:67:4b,vlan=0,model=e1000 -net tap,fd=15,script=,vlan=0,ifname=vnet0 -serial pty -parallel none -usb -vnc 127.0.0.1:0 -k en-gb
For virtio:
LC_ALL=C PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin HOME=/root USER=root LOGNAME=root /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -S -M pc -m 2048 -smp 4 -name RHEL_5_x86-64 -uuid cb44b2c5-e64b-848f-77af-f8e7f02fa2ca -no-kvm-pit-reinjection -monitor pty -pidfile /var/run/libvirt/qemu//RHEL_5_x86-64.pid -boot c -drive file=/var/lib/libvirt/images/CentOS_5_x86-64.img,if=virtio,index=0,boot=on -net nic,macaddr=54:52:00:5a:67:4b,vlan=0,model=e1000 -net tap,fd=15,script=,vlan=0,ifname=vnet0 -serial pty -parallel none -usb -vnc 127.0.0.1:0 -k en-gb
The test is building the Linux kernel (only taking the second run to give the test the benefit of local cache):
make clean; make -j8 all; make clean; sync; time make -j8 all
This takes about 10 minutes with IDE disk emulation and about 13 minutes with virtio. I ran the tests multiple time with most non-essential services on the host switched off (including cron/atd), and the guest in single-user mode to reduce the "noise" in the test to the minimum, and the results are pretty consistent, with virtio being about 30% behind.
Quoted 1 line
Lastly, do you use cache=wb on qemu? it's just a fun mode, we use cache=off only.
I don't see the option being set in the logs, so I'd guess it's whatever qemu-kvm defaults to.
Gordan
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
The test is building the Linux kernel (only taking the second run to give the test the benefit of local cache):
make clean; make -j8 all; make clean; sync; time make -j8 all
This takes about 10 minutes with IDE disk emulation and about 13 minutes with virtio. I ran the tests multiple time with most non-essential services on the host switched off (including cron/atd), and the guest in single-user mode to reduce the "noise" in the test to the minimum, and the results are pretty consistent, with virtio being about 30% behind.
I'd expect for an observed 30% wall clock time difference of an operation as complex as a kernel build the base i/o throughput disparity is substantially greater. Did you try a more simple/regular load, eg: a streaming dd read of various block sizes from guest raw disk devices? This is also considerably easier to debug vs. the complex i/o load generated by a build.
One way to chop up the problem space is using blktrace on the host to observe both the i/o patterns coming out of qemu and the host's response to them in terms of turn around time. I expect you'll see somewhat different nature requests generated by qemu w/r/t blocking and number of threads serving virtio_blk requests relative to ide but the host response should be essentially the same in terms of data returned per unit time.
If the host looks to be turning around i/o request with similar latency in both cases, the problem would be lower frequency of requests generated by qemu in the case ofvirtio_blk. Here it would be useful to know the host
load generated by the guest for both cases.
-john
Signature · 1 line
[email protected]
Quoted 3 lines · Gordan Bobic
Quoted 1 line
Lastly, do you use cache=wb on qemu? it's just a fun mode, we use cache=off only.
I don't see the option being set in the logs, so I'd guess it's whatever qemu-kvm defaults to.
You can set this through libvirt by putting an element such as the following within your <disk> element:
<driver name='qemu' type='qcow2' cache='none'/>
(Setting the type is preferred to avoid security issues wherein a guest writes an arbitrary qcow2 header to the beginning of a raw disk, reboots and allows qemu's autodetection to decide that this formerly-raw disk should now be treated as a delta against a file they otherwise might not have access to read; as such, it's particularly important if you intend that the type be raw).
Quoted 11 lines · Charles Duffy
Quoted 5 lines · Gordan Bobic
Quoted 2 lines
Lastly, do you use cache=wb on qemu? it's just a fun mode, we use cache=off only.
I don't see the option being set in the logs, so I'd guess it's whatever qemu-kvm defaults to.
You can set this through libvirt by putting an element such as the following within your <disk> element:
<driver name='qemu' type='qcow2' cache='none'/>
It's not needed on rhel5.4 qemu - we have cache=none as a default
Quoted 11 lines
(Setting the type is preferred to avoid security issues wherein a guest writes an arbitrary qcow2 header to the beginning of a raw disk, reboots and allows qemu's autodetection to decide that this formerly-raw disk should now be treated as a delta against a file they otherwise might not have access to read; as such, it's particularly important if you intend that the type be raw).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html