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

[Xen-users] very interesting Xen Disk I/O performance

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-users] very interesting Xen Disk I/O performance
From: Jia Rao <rickenrao@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:02:18 -0400
Delivery-date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:03:06 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=kskqshAl1uInyyLAG/awrykPGz4ZdQuhwsU64XddbYw=; b=AE0ztlgsSnDHokYnVwoT7r5mgxOE4gu2VwN1m9En/LhR4GRJ09Q4MTY/XnYKDkgUyD FGP9Hn7vaXsRABRWRdvuNVsFHteMGelNqPTCG9ZJL/GV6zXI4uhYzoTzXoOtT5IlN74d cJUaH3NHLkZN5kPI1DGwoPqCFHemYYMnKQv1U=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=CmvubKwdjXLfGxH0VRkowTWT3N2M4tWpXFEoWPfguv0hMIF6HU5PdGEXF66hVCRq2X IfMjHKgQKoK9vdjqR8hTrC4/2FfxrUhQOiIOPfGDnETJ0xvM8BnemjT1UPa3ykiPKckP j/mEvcwLjKSR11YWOigJ2Jp8XkJvSA3hncHLY=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all,

I tested the xen vm disk I/O this weekend and had some interesting observations:

I ran TPC-C benchmarks (mostly random small disk read) within two VMs (PV) with the exactly the same resource and software configuration. I started the benchmarks in the two VMs at the same time (started with a script, the time difference is within several ms). The Xen VM scheduler seems always favor one VM, which results in a 50% better performance over the other VM.  I changed the seqence of the VM creation and application starting order, the specific VM always got better performance, 30%-50% better.

What could be the reason that xen always favor a specific VM?

I ran the above test for several more times. Between each run, I purged the cached data within each VM to make the I/O demand always the same. It is interesting that the performance gap between the two VM becomes smaller and smaller. After 6 runs, the performance almost the same.

Anyone has any idea? Does the VM scheduler scheduling VMs based on history?

I am using Xen 3.3.1, CentOS 5.1, linux 2.8.18-x86_64
Each VM has 512M, 2-VCPU not pinned. Dom0 with 512M, not pinned.
Host: dell poweredge 1950: 8G, two quad-core Intel xeon.

Thanks in advance,
Jia.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Xen-users] very interesting Xen Disk I/O performance, Jia Rao <=