From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jul 22 07:19:19 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A34B106566B;
	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:19:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18228FC0A;
	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:19:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6M7JDWA003919;
	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id
	q6M7JDRa003916; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:19:13 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:19:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <500B795B.7000307@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207220916030.3912@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <50085193.6030203@gentoo.org>
	<CAJ-VmonynbAq8XaV_-dM7aEpQ1p33P3vHA1TMjsDs=ipXOsoTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5009DB2A.7070408@gentoo.org> <500A13A6.7030503@gentoo.org>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1207211014481.1535@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<500B795B.7000307@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]);
	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>,
	"hackers@FreeBSD.org" <hackers@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org,
	ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Awful FreeBSD 9 block IO performance in KVM
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:19:19 -0000

> You are right. It is not capped at that speed:
>
> root@freebsd:/root # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da1 bs=16384 count=262144
>
>
>
> 262144+0 records in
> 262144+0 records out
> 4294967296 bytes transferred in 615.840721 secs (6974153 bytes/sec)
>
>
you did test da1 while dmesg are about da0?

is it OK and da1 is another qemu-kvm vdisk?

If so, check

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da1 bs=512 count=256k

and compare speed.

i bet at something near 250kB/s and i think it is long I/O service 
pathlength in qemu-kvm SCSI device simulator.

Just my bet i don't run FreeBSD on any VM (as opposed to running Windows 
under FreeBSD in VBox)

check out how much CPU is used on the host side when you do that test.