On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enberg<penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See
the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
This is surprising. How is qemu invoked?
Prasad will have the details. Please note that the above are with Qemu
defaults which doesn't use virtio. The results with virtio are little
better but still in favor of tools/kvm.
The qcow2 image used for testing was copied on to /dev/shm to avoid
the disk delays in performance measurement.
QEMU was invoked with following parameters
$ qemu-system-x86_64 -hda<disk image on hard disk> -hdb
/dev/shm/test.qcow2 -m 1024M
Looking more closely at native KVM tools, you would need to use the
following invocation to have an apples-to-apples comparison:
qemu-system-x86_64 -drive file=/dev/shm/test.qcow2,cache=writeback,if=virtio
It doesn't appear that writes are stable by default with native KVM
tools. They are stable by default in QEMU because since many guests
simply do not inject FLUSH's reliably.
cache=writeback with qcow2 will use the same mode that native KVM tools
is using, unstable writes for data with metadata consistency preserved.
This is almost certainly while you're seeing such high performance btw.
You should also advertise WCE=1 to the guest from a correctness
perspective. You aren't doing that right now.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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
