| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
RE: [Xen-users] Asynchronous IO
Hi,
Thanks for your response. Even I got 52MB/sec when I tried to do IO with
buffer size 1 MB. But if I try to do IO with buffer size 512 Bytes, I am
getting 0.032 MB which is 67 IOPs which is not the expected result. Have
you tried the asynchronosu IO with different IO sizes??
I am sure I am using right version of MPT driver in Domain 0. Moreover
the same driver performs better if I do synchronous IO in Domain 0. I am
confused.
Thanks,
Priya.
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew
Warfield
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:11 PM
To: Priya PM
Cc: Ian Pratt; ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Asynchronous IO
Hi Priya,
I regularly use libaio in domain zero as a user-space backend for
other domains and am able to saturate a MPT fusion at about 60MB/s
without trying too hard. I seem to remember seeing a comment about a
recent performance drop on the linux-aio list, possibly from 2.6.11 to
2.6.12, you might want to take a peek at that. Also, are you sure that
your XenLinux dom0 kernel has your disk driver in it, and that it isn't
deferring to a less-efficient means of accessing the disk?
a.
On 9/9/05, Priya PM <pmpriya@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried the same operation with unstable version too. I have changed
> the IO scheduler to atropos and tried. But no use. I always get the
same results.
> Has anyone checked the Asynchronous IO path using libaio?
>
> It would be very much helpful if you can give me some ideas to proceed
> further,
>
> Thanks,
> Priya.
>
>
>
> On 9/8/05, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I have installed Xen on Linux 2.6.11.10 and i am trying to do
> > > Asynchronous Direct IO on SAS drives. The application which does
> > > the asynchronous direct io on SAS drive is running on Domain 0.
> > > Actually the IOPs what i get for a 512Bytes IO size is 67, but if
> > > i do the same operation on Linux 2.6.11.10 native kernel, i get
> > > 267 IOPs.Can anyone tell me why this huge differnece? Am i missing
> > > something? In the current setup on Xen, if i do Synchronous IO,
> > > then i am getting 265 IOPs which is expected. So i am wondering
> > > why Asynchronous IO should behave this way? Is there any reason??
> >
> > That's odd. You might want to try the -unstable tree. I know Andy
> > has used AIO just fine on -unstable.
> >
> > Ian
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home