Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:08:37 -0500 (CDT)
From:      Bryan Venteicher <bryanv@daemoninthecloset.org>
To:        Dieter BSD <dieterbsd@engineer.com>
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Awful FreeBSD 9 block IO performance in KVM
Message-ID:  <738102528.760.1342973317543.JavaMail.root@sage.daemoninthecloset.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120722061933.298410@gmx.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dieter BSD" <dieterbsd@engineer.com>
> To: hackers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:19:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Awful FreeBSD 9 block IO performance in KVM
> 
> >>> da0: 3.300MB/s transfers
> >>> da0: Command Queueing enabled
> >
> > root@freebsd:/root # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da1 bs=16384
> > count=262144
> >
> > 4294967296 bytes transferred in 615.840721 secs (6974153 bytes/sec)
> 
> 1) Does a larger block size (bs=1m) help?
> 
> 2) That's roughly the speed I'd expect without queueing. Is it really
> making effective use of queueing, or is something limiting queueing to
> one transfer at a time?

The likely fix here is basically do vtblk_startio() in a separate
kproc that vtblk_strategy() enqueues bio's to. This has been on my
todo for a while, but haven't had the time. Also, the use of
bioq_disksort() probably doesn't gain much for virtualized disks,
but I never found much of a difference in my testing.

> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?738102528.760.1342973317543.JavaMail.root>