 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device
| To: | Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device |
| 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= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1140148795.25078.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <1140148795.25078.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
> 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. a. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device, Rusty Russell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: user/hypervisor address space solution, Hollis Blanchard |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device, Rusty Russell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Xen Share w/ block device, Rusty Russell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
