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

Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance.

To: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance.
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:27:30 -0800
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen development list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Garloff <garloff@xxxxxxx>, Philip R Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Vincent Hanquez <tab@xxxxxxxxx>, Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:27:27 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050331154130.GQ9204@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D1E3930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331070514.GH9204@xxxxxxx> <20050331071043.GI9204@xxxxxxx> <63537e2b84ddbba6cb3d970f73c6ab35@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331081900.GK9204@xxxxxxx> <20050331143312.GB13179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331153449.GE12579@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331153925.GP9204@xxxxxxx> <20050331154130.GQ9204@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
Jens Axboe wrote:

There are still cases where it will be suboptimal of course, I didn't
intend to claim it will always be as fast as queue tracking! If you are
unlucky enough that the first request will reach the target device and
get started before the next one, you will have a small and a large part
of any given request executed. This isn't good for performance,
naturally. But queueing is so fast, I would be surprised if this
happened much in the real world.

Although the usual answer for what scheduling algorithm is
best is almost always "depends on the workload", it was
suggested to me that the cfq was still the best option to
go with. What do people feel about that? (Or is AS going
to remain default?).

Also, we're making the assumption here that guest OS = virtual
driver/device. I would rather we not make that assumption
always. This may be moot because I was also told there might
be a patch floating around (-mm ?) that allows you to
select scheduling algorithm on a per-device basis. Anyone
know if this is going to come in anytime soon?

thanks,
Nivedita




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