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/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-users] Re: domU has better I/O performance than dom0?

To: Troels Arvin <troels@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: domU has better I/O performance than dom0?
From: Stefan de Konink <skinkie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:44:37 +0100 (CET)
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:45:35 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <pan.2007.>
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>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Troels Arvin wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:27:54 +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> > The commandline was
> >
> > /usr/sbin/bonnie -d . -s 0.130 -n 8096 -r 8096
> You are measuring file creation rate, and not "raw I/O throughput",
> right? In that sense, your tests are different from what I measured.
> Still, your results are certainly strange. I wonder if they would be
> equally strange if you ran them on different non-virtualized servers.

I benchmarked iSCSI and NFS. You will notice the strangeness on NFS too:


Since NFS crashes my system if I do a benchmark that is larger than my
memory I guess the benchmark is done in memory (initially). Since the FC
results show better performance, could it be the offloading with multiple


Xen-users mailing list