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

Re: [Xen-users] Poor hard disk performance on xen-3/dom0

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Poor hard disk performance on xen-3/dom0
From: Marcin Owsiany <porridge@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:34:05 +0100
Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:41:55 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <43CE697A.1010008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D409EED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43CE697A.1010008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:14:50AM +1100, Woon Wai Keen wrote:
> In reply to myself, I just discovered a factor to the problem I'm facing.
> 
> # xm mem-set 0 120
> # hdparm -t /dev/sda
> 
>  /dev/sda:
>   Timing buffered disk reads:  180 MB in  3.02 seconds =  59.60 MB/sec
> 
> # xm mem-set 0 80
> # hdparm -t /dev/sda
> 
>  /dev/sda:
>   Timing buffered disk reads:   68 MB in  3.08 seconds =  22.08 MB/sec
> 
> I tried this in the non-xen kernel with a mem=64M boot flag, and found 
> that it does not happen (disk performs as expected). So I think that 
> something, somewhere, in the dom0 kernel underperforms with reduced RAM.
> 
> I'm fine with giving dom0 an extra 64MB just to avoid this problem, but 
> I'm also curious as to why this happens.

Seems like the benchmark is tainted because of buffer cache
interactions. Please try using a real benchmark program like bonnie++
and post your results.

Marcin
-- 
Marcin Owsiany
porridge@xxxxxxxx

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