First up, Phoronix hasn't tuned. It's observing the delivered state by an OS vendor. I started with what I believe to be the starting point - KVM. So the position of the KVM now is that it is either QEMU's configuration or Ubuntu's configuration. No further guidance or suggestions? Note that the prevailing response here does not see the 10 fold sqlite performance with guest vs host as a problem. I'll move this discussion to qemu then, is there any kvm developers who are willing to maintain this position in a discussion with QEMU? Regards... Matthew On 9/25/09, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/24/2009 10:49 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote: >> The test itself is a simple usage of SQLite. It is stock KVM as >> available in 2.6.31 on Ubuntu Karmic. So it would be the environment, >> not the test. >> >> So assuming that KVM upstream works as expected that would leave >> either 2.6.31 having an issue, or Ubuntu having an issue. >> >> Care to make an assertion on the KVM in 2.6.31? Leaving only Ubuntu's >> installation. >> > > kvm has nothing to do with it, it's purely qemu. For a long time qemu > has defaulted to write-through cacheing. This can be overridden and > maybe that's what Ubuntu or Phoronix do. > >> Can some KVM developers attempt to confirm that a 'correctly' >> configured KVM will not demonstrate this behaviour? >> http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/ (or is already available in newer >> distributions of Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu. >> > > A correctly configured kvm will not demonstrate this behaviour. > > -- > Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to > panic. > > -- Sent from my mobile device -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
