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-devel

[Xen-API] Re: [Xen-devel] io performance regression between xen and XCP

To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-API] Re: [Xen-devel] io performance regression between xen and XCP
From: Daniel Stodden <daniel.stodden@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:05:02 -0700
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:05:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C03F8DB.5010300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of API issues surrounding Xen <xen-api.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-api@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api>, <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api>, <mailto:xen-api-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4C03F8DB.5010300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-api-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 13:58 -0400, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> We have done the io performance test between xen and XCP, both tested on a
> separate disk, and found XCP's regression is very great:
> 
> XCP's parameters:
> Dom0
> ====== Control[d44ecc85-5539-438d-9bbc-f596dec69617] info:
> VCPU:
>                   VCPUs-params (MRW): mask: 0,1
>                      VCPUs-max ( RW): 8
>               VCPUs-at-startup ( RW): 8
>                   VCPUs-number ( RO): 8
>              VCPUs-utilisation (MRO): 
> Mem:
>                  memory-actual ( RO): 2146172928
>                  memory-target ( RO): 2146172928
>                memory-overhead ( RO): 1048576
>              memory-static-max ( RW): 2146172928
>             memory-dynamic-max ( RW): 2146172928
>             memory-dynamic-min ( RW): 1887436800
>              memory-static-min ( RW): 307232768
> 
> Guest:
> ====== spv1[9a1a2bf2-41a7-ca00-8dc5-92c51b6ed992] info:
> VCPU:
>                   VCPUs-params (MRW): mask: 7
>                      VCPUs-max ( RW): 1
>               VCPUs-at-startup ( RW): 1
>                   VCPUs-number ( RO): 1
>              VCPUs-utilisation (MRO): 0: 0.000
> Mem:
>                  memory-actual ( RO): 1073741824
>                  memory-target ( RO): 1073741824
>                memory-overhead ( RO): 1048576
>              memory-static-max ( RW): 1073741824
>             memory-dynamic-max ( RW): 1073741824
>             memory-dynamic-min ( RW): 1073741824
>              memory-static-min ( RW): 1073741824
> 
> 
> Xen's parameters:
> 
> ###### xm list ######
> Name                                        ID   Mem VCPUs      State   
> Time(s)
> Domain-0                                     0  2048     2     r-----     52.5
> co5.4-32-2                                         1  1024     1     -b----   
>   33.0
> ###### xm vcpu-list ######
> Name                                ID  VCPU   CPU State   Time(s) CPU 
> Affinity
> Domain-0                             0     0     0   r--      42.2 0
> Domain-0                             0     1     1   -b-      10.4 1
> co5.4-32-2                           1     0     6   -b-      33.0 6
> ###### xm sched-credit ######
> Name                                ID Weight  Cap
> Domain-0                             0    256    0
> co5.4-32-2                           1    256    0
> 
> 
> Test result:
> 
> - direct read/write test:
> test command:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=1.img oflag=direct bs=256k count=4096
> dd if=1.img of=/dev/null iflag=direct bs=256k count=4096
> 
> Xen: write: 33.3 MB/s read: 206 MB/s
> XCP: write: 18.5 MB/s read: 108 MB/s
> 
> - no direct read/write test:
> test command:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=1.img  bs=256k count=4096
> dd if=1.img of=/dev/null  bs=256k count=4096
> 
> Xen: write: 319 MB/s read: 85.9 MB/s
> XCP: write: 136 MB/s read: 63.8 MB/s
> 
> Now, we are very confused about this result :-(

These are bare FS writes, not guest throughput?

On ext3 with the 2.6.27 kernel?

Try turning off the barrier flag on the root fs.

Daniel


_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api

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