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-users

RE: Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Poor disk io performance in domUs

To: "David Brown" <dmlb2000@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Poor disk io performance in domUs
From: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:44:43 +0200
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrej Radonic <rado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:43:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <9c21eeae0706220900i109f6c9eibaf2d0a37ca20c32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
Thread-index: Ace05nF7XG+KbQhyRma1OldH5XeC2wCLYeuQ
Thread-topic: Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Poor disk io performance in domUs
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Brown [mailto:dmlb2000@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 22 June 2007 17:00
> To: Petersson, Mats
> Cc: Andrej Radonic; xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Poor disk io 
> performance in domUs
> 
> > Actually, if you expect IOMMU to solve the problem, you can 
> do the same
> > (with slightly less security, admittedly) in Para-virtual 
> domains today
> > - since IOMMU can only translate and protect on a 
> per-device level, so
> > you need to have one device per domain.
> 
> Well yeah the same thing can be accomplished today but there's that
> little kernel process that has to do the mapping in software and that
> takes away cpu time from doing other work.

Assuming we're talking about Para-virtual domains, the guest already
knows the physical address, so there's no need to do any extra work
here. [this assumes the packet of data doesn't have to be copied into a
contiguous buffer, that's a differrent matter - but it's quite likely
that it doesn't actually have to be - particularly not for small packets
of data such as network traffic]. 

> 
> Ideally, you would bring up a box with say 6+ domains on it plus a
> dom0 and no matter what you did with the domains it wouldn't adversely
> affect the other domains, even dom0. So this theoretical box would
> probably have 7 network devices (with IOMMU) mapped to the various
> domains in hardware so no software has to do the mapping to the
> different address spaces. Similarly with disk devices, there would
> have to be 7 scsi devices so that each could be mapped the the various
> domains. Then there would be only one box and it could really look
> like 7 different machines and have the same performance as it would
> normally.

IOMMU on Para-virtual domains isn't going to give you any advantage
other than proper protection. For HVM domains, it's the key that unlocks
guest-access to hardware (and of course giving protection).

> 
> > So if you have a disk-controller with disk for each domain, 
> you could do
> > that today. Same with network controllers [there are even 
> some network
> > controllers which are "multihead", meaning that they 
> present themselves
> > as multiple individual devices, even though it all goes 
> onto a single
> > network connection].
> >
> > The other point that immediately comes to mind here is that the Dom0
> > should definitely have it's own CPU if you're doing a lot of
> > disk/network IO through it.
> 
> Well, I should have said hardware IOMMU, but you're right, its on a
> device based level which doesn't help I/O so much since that's not
> based on disks. Really what we need is a scsi based IOMMU controler of
> some kind that can do the translation on the device itself per disk,
> now that'd be cool :)

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that future disk controllers
will have "multi-head" capabilities too - so that you could have a
single SCSI-card in the machine and 4 disks, but to the software, it
would appear like 4 SCSI controllers with one disk each. 

Note this is PURE speculation - I have no idea if anyone is working on
something like that. I only know of network cards like that. But froma
conceptual standpoint, there's no real problem doing that. 

--
Mats
> 
> - David Brown
> 
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

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