|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Xen hard-disk performance regression?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:01:38AM +0200, Olivier B. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are you using LVM ? Barriers was implemented on LVM in recent versions,
> which can probably explain some performance regressions like this.
>
> Olivier
>
Yes, as a matter of fact, but not for those partitions.
Those are simply 4 partitions:
/dev/xvdb1 1 71799 576725436 83 Linux
/dev/xvdb2 71800 97908 209720542+ 83 Linux
/dev/xvdb3 97909 117490 157292415 83 Linux
/dev/xvdb4 117491 121601 33021607+ 83 Linux
each one formatted with XFS filesystem.
Another guess I made is about the destination fs' fragmentation (that's
about 90%). But this shouldn't affect the performance of only one
kernel.
It is so strange.
> On 11/04/2010 21:44, Fabiano Francesconi wrote:
> > Ok, confirmed. The problem is only visible when copying files so it's
> > not something related to the hard-disk itself.
> >
> > I sincerely don't know how to dig into this but I have made some tests
> > myself.
> >
> > I've tried copying a single avi file (350mb) from one partition to
> > another one. Both partition are on the same device (WDC WD10EADS-00M2B0)
> > and both formatted in XFS filesystem.
> >
> > Running 2.6.32-xen-r1 I have the following output:
> >
> > real 1m35.001s
> > user 0m0.016s
> > sys 0m0.722s
> >
> > Running 2.6.29-xen-r4 I have, instead, the following output:
> >
> > real 0m20.689s
> > user 0m0.018s
> > sys 0m2.047s
> >
> > How can I see such a difference? Is there some known regression for XFS
> > filesystem? I might try to run a vanilla kernel instead of a xen-patched
> > one.
> >
> > Any suggestion will be very much appreciated.
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
--
Fabiano Francesconi [GPG key: 0x81E53461]
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
|
|