|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Xen performance
On 10/11/05, Angela Norton <anorton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
While doing some benchmarking of Xen, I ran across a couple performance
issues. I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this and whether
there is anything I can do to tune the performance.
About your performance:
- You should use lvm volumes for your guest systems, that should give better I/O performance.
- Disable tls
- more IO performance: change FS, tune FS..
about the issues found, can't comment, but you could probably compare
those results to vmware or qemu, to assert if the performance should be
better.
Like the other reply says, hw is allways better than with some extra operating system layering and doing virtualization.
It would be more fair to compare performance between virtualization technologies.
Of course hw performance could be used has a baseline.
The setup:
CPU: Athlon XP 2500+ (1826.005 MHz)
RAM: Limited to 256 MB in native
and xenU
Disk:Maxtor 6B200P0, ATA DISK drive
Motherboard: ASUS A7VBX-MX SE
Network: tested only loopback
interface.
I have Fedora Core 4 installed as dom0, with Scientific Linux 3.0.7
(RHEL3) installed on a separate partition as the single domU. I
installed the FC4 xen rpms (xen-3.0-0.20050912.fc4,
kernel-xenU-2.6.12-1.1454_FC4, kernel-xen0-2.6.12-1.1454_FC4) using yum.
I used the following benchmark tools/suites:
bonnie++-1.03a
UnixBench 4.1.0
ab
lmbench 3.0-a5
The areas where I saw the greatest performance hit were in system
calls, process creation, and pipe throughput. Here are some selected
results:
UnixBench:
============
Scientific Linux 3 Native:
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
System -- Linux localhost.localdomain 2.4.21-27.0.2.EL #1 Tue Jan 18
20:27:31 CST 2005 i686 athlon i386 GNU/
Linux
Start Benchmark Run: Thu Sep 22 15:23:17 PDT 2005
2 interactive users.
15:23:17 up 12 min, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.08, 0.05
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root
root
4 Sep 9 10:56 /bin/sh ->
bash
/bin/sh: symbolic link to bash
/dev/hdc11
20161172 5059592 14077440 27% /
<--snip-->
System Call
Overhead
995605.1 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Pipe
Throughput 1135376.3 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Pipe-based Context
Switching
375521.7 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Process
Creation 9476.4 lps (30.0 secs, 3
samples)
Execl
Throughput 2918.3 lps (29.7 secs, 3
samples)
<--snip-->
INDEX VALUES
TEST
BASELINE RESULT
INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register
variables 116700.0
4307104.5
369.1
Double-Precision
Whetstone
55.0 980.4
178.3
Execl
Throughput
43.0 2918.3
678.7
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000
maxblocks
3960.0 143780.0
363.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500
maxblocks
1655.0 72156.0
436.0
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000
maxblocks
5800.0 192427.0
331.8
Pipe
Throughput 12440.0 1135376.3
912.7
Process
Creation 126.0 9476.4
752.1
Shell Scripts (8
concurrent)
6.0 329.7
549.5
System Call
Overhead 15000.0 995605.1
663.7
=========
FINAL
SCORE
475.2
--------------------------------------------
SL3 XenU
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)
System -- Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xenU #1 SMP
Fri Sep 9 00:45:34 EDT 2005 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
Start Benchmark Run: Fri Sep 23 09:08:23 PDT 2005
1 interactive users.
09:08:23 up 0 min, 1 user, load average: 0.95, 0.25, 0.08
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root
root
4 Sep 9 10:56 /bin/sh ->
bash
/bin/sh: symbolic link to bash
/dev/sda1
20161172 5058964 14078068 27% /
<--snip-->
System Call
Overhead
969225.3 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Pipe
Throughput 619270.7 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Pipe-based Context
Switching
85183.9 lps (10.0 secs, 10
samples)
Process
Creation 3014.6 lps (30.0 secs, 3
samples)
Execl
Throughput 1807.4 lps (29.9 secs, 3
samples)
<--snip-->
INDEX
VALUES
TEST
BASELINE RESULT
INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register
variables 116700.0
4288647.9
367.5
Double-Precision
Whetstone
55.0 976.3
177.5
Execl
Throughput
43.0 1807.4
420.3
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000
maxblocks
3960.0 143559.0
362.5
File Copy 256 bufsize 500
maxblocks
1655.0 70328.0
424.9
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000
maxblocks
5800.0 186297.0
321.2
Pipe
Throughput 12440.0 619270.7
497.8
Process
Creation 126.0 3014.6
239.3
Shell Scripts (8
concurrent)
6.0 188.0
313.3
System Call
Overhead 15000.0 969225.3
646.2
=========
FINAL
SCORE
356.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lmbench Selected Results:
==========================
SL3 Native:
<--snip-->
Simple syscall: 0.1516 microseconds
Simple read: 0.2147 microseconds
Simple write: 0.1817 microseconds
Simple stat: 1.8486 microseconds
Simple fstat: 0.3026 microseconds
Simple open/close: 2.2201 microseconds
<--snip-->
Protection fault: 0.2196 microseconds
Pipe latency: 2.2539 microseconds
AF_UNIX sock stream latency: 4.8221 microseconds
Process fork+exit: 143.7297 microseconds
Process fork+execve: 483.0833 microseconds
Process fork+/bin/sh -c: 1884.0000 microseconds
-------------------------------------------------
SL3 XenU:
<--snip-->
Simple syscall: 0.1671 microseconds
Simple read: 0.4090 microseconds
Simple write: 0.3588 microseconds
Simple stat: 3.5761 microseconds
Simple fstat: 0.5530 microseconds
Simple open/close: 3.9425 microseconds
<--snip-->
Protection fault: 0.5993 microseconds
Pipe latency: 12.1886 microseconds
AF_UNIX sock stream latency: 22.3485 microseconds
Process fork+exit: 365.8667 microseconds
Process fork+execve: 1066.4000 microseconds
Process fork+/bin/sh -c: 3826.0000 microseconds
<--snip-->
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can post the full results of these tests if anyone is interested.
Does anyone have any ideas for tuning the performance of the domUs? Are
there any configurations that perform better than others?
Thank You,
Angela Norton
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
--
Miguel Sousa Filipe
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
Home