On 06/18/2012 05:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fio test shows it gives, 28%, 24%, 21%, 16% IOPS boost and 32%, 17%, 21%, 16%
latency improvement for sequential read/write, random read/write respectively.
Sounds great. What storage configuration did you use (single spinning
disk, SSD, storage array) and are these numbers for parallel I/O or
sequential I/O?
I used ramdisk as the backend storage.
What changed since Minchan worked on this? I remember he wasn't
satisfied that this was a clear win. Your numbers are strong so
either you fixed something important or you are looking at different
benchmark configurations.
I am using kvm tool instead qemu. He wasn't satisfied the poor
sequential performance. I removed the plug and unplug operation and bio
completion batching. You can grab Michan's patch and make a diff to see
the details.
Here is the fio's config file.
[global]
exec_prerun="echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
group_reporting
norandommap
ioscheduler=noop
thread
bs=512
size=4MB
direct=1
filename=/dev/vdb
numjobs=256
ioengine=aio
iodepth=64
loops=3
[seq-read]
stonewall
rw=read
[seq-write]
stonewall
rw=write
[rnd-read]
stonewall
rw=randread
[rnd-write]
stonewall
rw=randwrite
--
Asias
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
