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 disk io performance in domUs

To: "Xen users mailing list" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Poor disk io performance in domUs
From: "Peter Braun" <xenware@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:52:07 +0200
Delivery-date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:50:14 -0700
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JyZY2SLJ+Srdvo1r5ymhKUytRHXbc+HVB4eko6ZmUxOoG+YJF4B6YT8MFGjbWI1F4eCXGfVTk/vz8W66uXQAOxOaXlELf3yCHm6epoLezHP+nDWhTWmNoMLmHYJYpn2ibcEx87uS6FxBnF9Z9VFjGcWPAoctoQ3VCvrz3GD+cbI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=f+/EAV30Gb+Pkegkq12AT5yeVv71l45CIyVSrcLuYGu6ef3LDJBAL08aCR4Z9Vbvv56X4AnvPDm1B0GgVqzdPOzfBWwR/Rd10JW11IJVm24jBbf7gDDnwslwUcjIzpqTNZmiKJvQURM96mOtDm4Ruk4d3eu6+wfHQQVgFwisdkM=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <acbf498f0706230351o313705e3m122cb8f9184df9ed@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>
References: <467B990F.3040602@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B02561E79@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <acbf498f0706230351o313705e3m122cb8f9184df9ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lets say we have 4 domU heavy utilized.

What about providing physical disk to every domU to avoid sharing
single disk among all guests?

Will it help to have didecated disk per domU?


Peter


2007/6/22, Petersson, Mats <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Andrej Radonic
> > Sent: 22 June 2007 10:41
> > To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Poor disk io performance in domUs
> >
> > Hi Mats,
> >
> > >> so far we measured separately in dom0 and in the mail-domU.
> > >> > The 20 MB/s happen as soon as there is concurrent io from two
> > >> > or more domUs.
> > >
> > > That would be a consequence of the two domains causing more
> > > head-movement on the drive(s) than a single domain, so you get more
> > > overhead. So if you get 50MB/s in a single domain, you
> > don't get 25MB/s
> > > in two parallel domains - you get a bit less. That's just what I'd
> > > expect in this situation. [This is because the "disk" for
> > each virtual
> > > machine is in a different part of the disk, so each time the first
> > > domain acesses the disk, it needs a (big) move of the
> > read/write head,
> > > and then another big move when the second domain accesses
> > it's part of
> > > the disk].
> >
> > OK, I definitely agree, but I am still not sure about the extent of
> > throughput degradation.
> >
> > I remeasured the setup. This is what I get using dd to write a large
> > file to the disk:
> >
> > dd simultaneously in both dom0 = 170 MB/s
> I take it you mean "two parallel 'dd' commands at the same time"? That
> would still write to the same portion of disk (unless you specifically
> choose different partitions?)
>
> If it's the same partition, then, althouth there is some head movement
> involved, there will be less head movement than two domains that start
> 10GB apart on a disk. Also, the filesystem driver in the Dom0 can
> re-arrange the disk accesses to make fewer movements.
>
> > dd simultaneously in two domU = 34 MB/s
> I take it this means two different DomU doing "dd"?
> Is that 34 MB/s "total" (i.e. 17MB/s per domain) or per domain (68 MB/s
> total)?
>
> > dd in a single dom0 = 120 MB/s
> So this is "better" than half of 170 MB/s, agreed? So even in a single
> domain, running parallel sessions reduce the performance.
>
> Note also that there is overhead in transferring from Dom0 to DomU and
> the other way around. Even if this is fairly small, it's not possible to
> ignore this.
>
> >
> > Would you really say that one-third of io performance is what
> > is to be
> > expected?
>
> It's difficult to say - I'm just trying to give you some explanation to
> what you're seeing.
>
> --
> Mats
> >
> > Thanks for your cooperation.
> > Andrej
> > interSales AG, Cologne/Germany
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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