On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:06:41AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Freitag, 25. September 2020 00:10:23 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote: > > 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. > > Please note, when it comes to performance aspects, you should set a > reasonable > high value for 'msize' on 9p client side: > https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9psetup#msize
Interesting. I will try that. What does "msize" do? > > I'm also working on performance optimizations for 9p BTW. There is plenty of > headroom to put it mildly. For QEMU 5.2 I started by addressing readdir > requests: > https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/5.2#9pfs Nice. I guess this performance comparison between 9p and virtiofs is good. Both the projects can try to identify weak points and improve performance. Thanks Vivek
