On Sunday April 27 2008 12:10:35 pm Jim Burns wrote:
> >> Nice improvements. I will test disk i/o w/ iometer later.
> >
> > I'll be interested in the results, but the disk stuff hasn't changed in
>
> a while.
>
> I kind of thought so, since you haven't mentioned it, but I'll post the
> results later anyway.
And here we go:
Equipment: core duo 2300, 1.66ghz each, 2M, sata drive configured for UDMA/100
System: fc8 32bit pae, xen 3.1.2, xen.gz 3.1.3, dom0 2.6.21
Tested hvm: XP Pro SP2, 2002 w/512M, file backed vbd on local disk, tested w/
iometer 2006-07-27 (1Gb \iobw.tst, 5min run) & iperf 1.7.0 (1 min run)
Previous iometer results with 0.8.4 (from the 'New binary release of GPL PV
drivers for Windows' thread on 02/24, which was using xen.gz 3.1.0-rc7):
pattern 4k, 50% read, 0% random
(dynamo is the windows or linux client doing the actual work)
dynamo on? | io/s | MB/s | Avg. i/o time(ms} | max i/o time(ms) | %CPU
domu w/gplpv| 273.0 | 1.07 | 431.52 | 0 | 32.27
domu w/qemu | 251.6 | 0.98 | 10.05 | 0 | 28.44
dom0 w/4Gb | 1040.1 | 4.06 | 0.96 | 395.4 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 808.1 | 3.16 | 1.24 | 977.1 | 0
(2nd dom0 numbers from when booted w/o /gplpv)
pattern 32k, 50% read, 0% random
domu w/gplpv| 161.6 | 5.05 | -3.32 | 0 | 19.80
domu w/qemu | 109.0 | 3.41 | -8.93 | 0 | 25.35
dom0 w/4Gb | 140.7 | 4.40 | 7.10 | 467.6 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 159.3 | 4.98 | 6.28 | 270.1 | 0
And now the 0.8.9 results:
pattern 4k, 50% read, 0% random
dynamo on? | io/s | MB/s | Avg. i/o time(ms} | max i/o time(ms) | %CPU
domu w/gplpv| 331.5 | 1.29 | 232.29 | 0 | 35.63
domu w/qemu | 166.1 | 0.65 | 9.67 | 0 | 35.09
dom0 w/4Gb | 1088.3 | 4.25 | 0.92 | 487.4 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 1118.0 | 4.37 | 0.89 | 181.3 | 0
(2nd dom0 numbers from when booted w/o /pv)
pattern 32k, 50% read, 0% random
domu w/gplpv| 166.0 | 5.19 | 7.98 | 0 | 29.85
domu w/qemu | 100.4 | 3.14 | 21.09 | 0 | 35.93
dom0 w/4Gb | 61.8 | 1.93 | 16.14 | 1492.3 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 104.9 | 3.28 | 9.54 | 906.6 | 0
Despite some odd anomalies in the 0.8.9 dom0 32k pattern results, the general
results are that 0.8.9 is marginally faster than 0.8.4. Domu 32k patterns are
closer to dom0 performance than 4k patterns. 0.8.9 is much faster than qemu,
compared to the 0.8.4 vs. qemu numbers, mostly because today's qemu numbers
were slower than the previous ones.
And now for something totally different: I just upgraded my processor from an
Intel Core Duo 2300, 1.66Mhz to a Core 2 Duo 5600, 1.86 Mhz. Here's some new
iometer results:
pattern 4k, 50% read, 0% random
dynamo on? | io/s | MB/s | Avg. i/o time(ms} | max i/o time(ms) | %CPU
domu w/gplpv| 501.7 | 1.96 | 2.90 | 0 | 31.68
domu w/qemu | 187.5 | 0.73 | 5.87 | 0 | 29.89
dom0 w/4Gb | 1102.3 | 4.31 | 0.91 | 445.5 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 1125.8 | 4.40 | 0.89 | 332.1 | 0
(2nd dom0 numbers from when booted w/o /pv)
pattern 32k, 50% read, 0% random
domu w/gplpv| 238.3 | 7.45 | 4.09 | 0 | 22.48
domu w/qemu | 157.4 | 4.92 | 6.35 | 0 | 20.51
dom0 w/4Gb | 52.5 | 1.64 | 19.05 | 1590.0 | 0
dom0 w/4Gb | 87.8 | 2.74 | 11.39 | 1286.4 | 0
So, between the two processors, the new one gives qemu and dom0 numbers that
are modestly faster, and gplpv numbers that are 50% greater.
As far as iperf goes, 'iperf -c dom0-name -t 60' gives 10 Mbits/s w/o /gplpv,
and 32.1 Mbits/s w/ /gplpv. This was with all advanced options turned on for
the PV nic. My previous number for 0.8.9 w/ the old processor was 25 Mbits/s.
And I haven't even enables 64 bits yet!
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home