On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:33:01PM +0000, Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Sorry for the delay about how to reproduce `fio` data. > > I have some code to automate testing for multiple kata configs and collect > info like: > - Kata-env, kata configuration.toml, qemu command, virtiofsd command. > > See: > https://github.com/jcvenegas/mrunner/ > > > Last time we agreed to narrow the cases and configs to compare virtiofs and > 9pfs > > The configs where the following: > > - qemu + virtiofs(cache=auto, dax=0) a.ka. `kata-qemu-virtiofs` WITOUT xattr > - qemu + 9pfs a.k.a `kata-qemu` > > Please take a look to the html and raw results I attach in this mail.
Hi Carlos, So you are running following test. fio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=random_read_write.fio --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 --output=/output/fio.txt And following are your results. 9p -- READ: bw=211MiB/s (222MB/s), 211MiB/s-211MiB/s (222MB/s-222MB/s), io=3070MiB (3219MB), run=14532-14532msec WRITE: bw=70.6MiB/s (74.0MB/s), 70.6MiB/s-70.6MiB/s (74.0MB/s-74.0MB/s), io=1026MiB (1076MB), run=14532-14532msec virtiofs -------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=159MiB/s (167MB/s), 159MiB/s-159MiB/s (167MB/s-167MB/s), io=3070MiB (3219MB), run=19321-19321msec WRITE: bw=53.1MiB/s (55.7MB/s), 53.1MiB/s-53.1MiB/s (55.7MB/s-55.7MB/s), io=1026MiB (1076MB), run=19321-19321msec So looks like you are getting better performance with 9p in this case. Can you apply "shared pool" patch to qemu for virtiofsd and re-run this test and see if you see any better results. In my testing, with cache=none, virtiofs performed better than 9p in all the fio jobs I was running. For the case of cache=auto for virtiofs (with xattr enabled), 9p performed better in certain write workloads. I have identified root cause of that problem and working on HANDLE_KILLPRIV_V2 patches to improve WRITE performance of virtiofs with cache=auto and xattr enabled. I will post my 9p and virtiofs comparison numbers next week. In the mean time will be great if you could apply following qemu patch, rebuild qemu and re-run above test. https://www.redhat.com/archives/virtio-fs/2020-September/msg00081.html Also what's the status of file cache on host in both the cases. Are you booting host fresh for these tests so that cache is cold on host or cache is warm? Thanks Vivek
