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 performance on HVM (kernbench)

To: deshantm@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel mailing list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)
From: Daniel Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:38:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1e16a9ed0809101123m71a12030v7d06501f6467f93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This doesn't answer the HVM question but it appears that
you are running guests with 1 vCPU but comparing against
a dual-CPU native.  True?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Deshane [mailto:deshantm@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:23 PM
> To: xen-devel mailing list
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Poor performance on HVM (kernbench)
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> We are continuing our Xen vs. KVM benchmarking that I 
> presented at Xen summit.
> 
> This time, we are focusing on newer versions and also planning to
> include Xen HVM
> and KVM with PV drivers results. As well as adding some more tests.
> 
> I have setup Xen 3.3 from source, and am using Linux 2.6.27-rc4 for
> all the guests.
> 
> Below are some raw kernbench results, which clearly show that 
> I have a problem
> with Xen HVM. It may just be a configuration issue, but we have tried
> all that we
> could think of so far (i.e file:, instead of tap:aio). I have also
> tried xen-unstable and
> it doesn't seem to produce any better results. I am also in the
> process of trying
> kernbench on older versions of Xen HVM.
> 
> here is the xm command line
> xm create /dev/null name=benchvm0 memory=2048
> kernel="/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader" builder="hvm"
> device_model=/usr/lib64/xen/bin/qemu-dm
> disk=file:/root/benchvm/bin/img-perf_xen_hvm_test1/image-0.img,hda,w
> vnc=1 vncdisplay=0 vif=mac=AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:00,bridge=br0
> vif=mac=AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:7b,bridge=br1 vncviewer="yes"
> on_poweroff=destroy on_reboot=restart on_crash=preserve
> 
> I will also consider an IO test, such as iozone to see if
> the disk IO problems are a cause. The dom0 cpu
> doesn't seem to be under much load at all during the
> kernbench run.
> 
> System time on the kernbench run is 1/2 of the time, so does
> that suggest either disk IO or guest scheduling problem?
> 
> System time on the other cases is 1/4 or less on the other
> cases.
> 
> If anybody has any ideas, suggestions, or can even run Xen 
> HVM kernbench
> vs. native on their setup to compare against that would be 
> very helpful.
> 
> The system setup is a Intel core2 dual 4 GB of ram.
> The HVM guest does run the libata driver similar to KVM with 
> emulated drivers.
> 
> Thanks,
> Todd
> 
> KVM PV drivers
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 527.572 (0.681337)
> User Time 404.3 (0.982141)
> System Time 122.552 (0.468636)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 116020 (180.82)
> Sleeps 31307 (94.2072)
> 
> 
> KVM Emulated drivers
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 527.968 (0.450744)
> User Time 403.95 (0.342929)
> System Time 122.134 (0.550709)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 115907 (214.3)
> Sleeps 31302.4 (88.7175)
> 
> Xen PV
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 446.876 (0.130115)
> User Time 392.088 (0.339367)
> System Time 54.76 (0.391088)
> Percent CPU 99 (0)
> Context Switches 64601.4 (163.314)
> Sleeps 31214.8 (183.53)
> 
> 
> 
> Xen HVM
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 2081.71 (34.0459)
> User Time 617.36 (3.61771)
> System Time 1430.36 (28.3309)
> Percent CPU 98 (0)
> Context Switches 331843 (5283.28)
> Sleeps 37329.8 (91.538)
> 
> 
> KVM Native (Linux)
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 8 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 216.076 (0.121778)
> User Time 381.122 (0.259557)
> System Time 43.242 (0.278783)
> Percent CPU 196 (0)
> Context Switches 75483.2 (389.988)
> Sleeps 38078.8 (354.267)
> 
> 
> Xen native 2.6.18.8 dom0 kernel
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 8 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 228.504 (0.0808084)
> User Time 384.014 (0.657632)
> System Time 64.028 (0.733669)
> Percent CPU 195.8 (0.447214)
> Context Switches 35270.4 (264.36)
> Sleeps 39493.4 (266.222)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

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