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] Default disk I/O scheduler in linux guest

To: Javier Guerra <javier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Default disk I/O scheduler in linux guest
From: Sadique Puthen <sputhenp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:20:42 +0530
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jia Rao <rickenrao@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:51:44 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <90eb1dc70902050652h6919a336l9767a8dea50af77a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <994429490902041424r53669032p3f146f0356143bc2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <90eb1dc70902050652h6919a336l9767a8dea50af77a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
Javier Guerra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Jia Rao <rickenrao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I just found out that xen assigns the NOOP disk scheduler for linux guest
>> OSes. Dom0 uses cfq scheduler (it is the linux default).
>> Is there a reason for xen to turn off disk request merging in the quest OS
>> by selecting a NOOP scheduler?
>> Is it because the request optimization will be performed in dom0 or VMM ?
>>     
>
> it's an appropriate default.
>
> everything that virtualizes the IO benefits from using NOOP scheduler.
>  the point is that any (re)ordering done by the guest would be useless
> when the underlying layers (Dom0 in this case, a SAN block device in
> others) mangle the IO requests from several guests.  not only you save
> CPU cycles by not trying to be clever on the DomU, but also pushing
> the requests as early as possible to the lower layer, the best
> optimisations can be done at that layer.
>   

If the underlying hardware is RAID5 done in the hardware level, using
cfq instead of noop in the guest gives 2x performance while testing with
a simple dd command.

Noop:

# sync ; date ; time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=1M count=500 ; date
; time sync ; date
Tue Apr 28 00:03:18 IST 2009
500+0 records in
500+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 10.2711 seconds, 51.0 MB/s

real 0m10.395s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m1.288s
Tue Apr 28 00:03:29 IST 2009

real 0m43.910s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
Tue Apr 28 00:04:13 IST 2009

CFQ in the guest:

sync ; date ; time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/test bs=1M count=500 ; date ;
time sync ; date
Tue Apr 28 00:02:09 IST 2009
500+0 records in
500+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 6.44671 seconds, 81.3 MB/s

real 0m6.451s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m1.204s
Tue Apr 28 00:02:15 IST 2009

real 0m28.451s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
Tue Apr 28 00:02:44 IST 2009

Is noop still the preferred choice to be the default?

>
>   


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

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