WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Asynchronous IO

To: "Priya, PM" <pm.priya@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Asynchronous IO
From: Andrew Warfield <andrew.warfield@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:45:54 +0100
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Priya PM <pmpriya@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:43:51 +0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=D3ZLrtPp/WJihf/TgRkSASgXjn7chDFFOYcY9rYdGwOfvm4qPVJuiCveehkvxfOrmMDRSzxkHQxHF94Z6/FMCoE2Vxq/owLLbhS/TexGQ/9JKUQ3tOyeel0XFp+FTiHYDwrw+5tP8RvGECh2IX5vQFLlXsX+ifoNDMN/moacXlk=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <950AE84B7A19D04BB262C61FB821F5AB09718703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <950AE84B7A19D04BB262C61FB821F5AB09718703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: andrew.warfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Priya,

I'm generally reading and writing 4KB buffers and haven't done a lot
of experimenting with other sizes.  I you want to send the source that
you are using to test throughput with, I'll take a look at how it
performs on my test box and see if I can help sort this out.

cheers,
a.

On 9/9/05, Priya, PM <pm.priya@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your response. Even I got 52MB/sec when I tried to do IO with
> buffer size 1 MB. But if I try to do IO with buffer size 512 Bytes, I am
> getting 0.032 MB which is 67 IOPs which is not the expected result. Have
> you tried the asynchronosu IO with different IO sizes??
> 
> I am sure I am using right version of MPT driver in Domain 0. Moreover
> the same driver performs better if I do synchronous IO in Domain 0. I am
> confused.
> 
> Thanks,
> Priya.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Warfield
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:11 PM
> To: Priya PM
> Cc: Ian Pratt; ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Asynchronous IO
> 
> Hi Priya,
> 
>    I regularly use libaio in domain zero as a user-space backend for
> other domains and am able to saturate a MPT fusion at about 60MB/s
> without trying too hard.  I seem to remember seeing a comment about a
> recent performance drop on the linux-aio list, possibly from 2.6.11 to
> 2.6.12, you might want to take a peek at that.  Also, are you sure that
> your XenLinux dom0 kernel has your disk driver in it, and that it isn't
> deferring to a less-efficient means of accessing the disk?
> 
> a.
> 
> On 9/9/05, Priya PM <pmpriya@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried the same operation with unstable version too. I have changed
> > the IO scheduler to atropos and tried. But no use. I always get the
> same results.
> > Has anyone checked the Asynchronous IO path using libaio?
> >
> > It would be very much helpful if you can give me some ideas to proceed
> 
> > further,
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Priya.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/8/05, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > I have installed Xen on Linux 2.6.11.10 and i am trying to do
> > > > Asynchronous Direct IO on SAS drives. The application which does
> > > > the asynchronous direct io on SAS drive is running on Domain 0.
> > > > Actually the IOPs what i get for a 512Bytes IO size is 67, but if
> > > > i do the same operation on Linux 2.6.11.10 native kernel, i get
> > > > 267 IOPs.Can anyone tell me why this huge differnece? Am i missing
> 
> > > > something? In the current setup on Xen, if i do Synchronous IO,
> > > > then i am getting 265 IOPs which is expected. So i am wondering
> > > > why Asynchronous IO should behave this way? Is there any reason??
> > >
> > > That's odd. You might want to try the -unstable tree. I know Andy
> > > has used AIO just fine on -unstable.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>