[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device

  • To: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Warfield <andrew.warfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:14:31 -0800
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:27:06 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PizoV+G5moTfau8EcwunfNqrCITm5QpeaGvoMKB+yiVeMIHPD+PC0KscSLTS7ijO8xnP98BEOkDG2DxYmJ5jSgaBqd74AK3FH9IhorWI8oIlspRAcajYGjvaSw4LRq71EUtlbya9XVc3/H17zzu96JaMWCnykkZeE9Il4Mf9J8w=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

> Here's the compulsory benchmark numbers (same machine, uniproc 3GHz
> Pentium 4), ext2 filesystem in a file in dom0 served to dom1:
> Current block device:
>         dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=1000: 71.5527 seconds

By my accounting that looks to be about 14 MB/s off your block device
using the existing split drivers... If you can't saturate the disk on
a 3 Ghz box I'd have to think that something has gone desperately
wrong.  Has a block performance bug slid in to unstable or something?

I don't doubt that better memory performance can be achieved by
adjusting event notification frequency/batching -- as you pointed out
earlier... but block devices are a pretty weird place to try to win. 
I'd expect the numbers from the two tests you're running to be
identical -- and bottlenecked on the disk.  By a lot.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.