On Mittwoch, 3. März 2021 15:50:37 CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 03:04:21PM +0100:
> > > We can definitely increase the default, for all transports in my
> > > opinion.
> > > As a first step, 64 or 128k?
> >
> > Just to throw some numbers first
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 03:04:21PM +0100:
> > We can definitely increase the default, for all transports in my
> > opinion.
> > As a first step, 64 or 128k?
>
> Just to throw some numbers first; when linearly reading a 12 GB file on guest
> (i.e. "time cat test.dat > /
On Samstag, 27. Februar 2021 01:03:40 CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:49:12PM +0100:
> > Right now the client uses a hard coded amount of 128 elements. So what
> > about replacing VIRTQUEUE_NUM by a variable which is initialized with a
> > valu
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:49:12PM +0100:
> Right now the client uses a hard coded amount of 128 elements. So what about
> replacing VIRTQUEUE_NUM by a variable which is initialized with a value
> according to the user's requested 'msize' option at init time?
>
> Accord
On Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2021 16:43:57 CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 04:16:52PM +0100:
> > Misapprehension + typo(s) in my previous message, sorry Michael. That's
> > 500k of course (not 5k), yes.
> >
> > Let me rephrase that question: are you
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 04:16:52PM +0100:
> Misapprehension + typo(s) in my previous message, sorry Michael. That's 500k
> of course (not 5k), yes.
>
> Let me rephrase that question: are you aware of something in virtio that
> would
> per se mandate an absolute hard
On Dienstag, 23. Februar 2021 15:07:31 CET Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Michael, Dominique,
> >
> > we are wondering here about the message size limitation of just 5 kiB in
> > the 9p Linux client (using virtio transport) which imposes a performance
> > bottleneck, introduced by this kernel commi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 02:39:48PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Montag, 22. Februar 2021 18:11:59 CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:08:04 +0100
> > Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I did not ever have a kernel crash when I boot a Linux guest with a 9
On Montag, 22. Februar 2021 18:11:59 CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:08:04 +0100
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I did not ever have a kernel crash when I boot a Linux guest with a 9pfs
> > root fs and 100 MiB msize.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > Should we ask virtio or 9
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:08:04 +0100
Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
[...]
> I did not ever have a kernel crash when I boot a Linux guest with a 9pfs root
> fs and 100 MiB msize.
Interesting.
> Should we ask virtio or 9p Linux client maintainers if
> they can add some info what this is about?
>
On Montag, 22. Februar 2021 13:18:14 CET Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:38:35 +0100
>
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 20:01:12 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > On Freitag, 19. Feb
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:38:35 +0100
Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 20:01:12 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 17:08:48 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020
On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 20:01:12 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 17:08:48 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:06:41AM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > On Freitag, 25.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 17:08:48 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > 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 testin
On Freitag, 19. Februar 2021 17:08:48 CET Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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
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 xa
On Dienstag, 29. September 2020 15:49:42 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Depends on what's randomized. If read chunk size is randomized, then yes,
> > you would probably see less performance increase compared to a simple
> > 'cat foo.dat'.
>
> We are using "fio" for testing and read chunk size is not
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:28:06PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Dienstag, 29. September 2020 15:03:25 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 02:14:43PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 25. September 2020 20:51:47 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > >
On Dienstag, 29. September 2020 15:03:25 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 02:14:43PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Freitag, 25. September 2020 20:51:47 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > * Christian Schoenebeck (qemu_...@crudebyte.com) wrote:
> > > > On Freitag,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 01:41:39PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
[..]
> So I'm sitll beating 9p; the thread-pool-size=1 seems to be great for
> read performance here.
>
Hi Dave,
I spent some time making changes to virtiofs-tests so that I can test
a mix of random read and random write wo
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 02:14:43PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Freitag, 25. September 2020 20:51:47 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Christian Schoenebeck (qemu_...@crudebyte.com) wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:05:38 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > >
On Freitag, 25. September 2020 20:51:47 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Christian Schoenebeck (qemu_...@crudebyte.com) wrote:
> > On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:05:38 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > > 9p ( mount -t 9p -o trans=virtio kernel /mnt
> > > > > -oversion=9p2000.L,cac
* Christian Schoenebeck (qemu_...@crudebyte.com) wrote:
> On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:05:38 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > 9p ( mount -t 9p -o trans=virtio kernel /mnt
> > > > -oversion=9p2000.L,cache=mmap,msize=1048576 ) test: (g=0): rw=randrw,
> > >
> > > Bottleneck ---
On Freitag, 25. September 2020 18:05:17 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:05:38 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > 9p ( mount -t 9p -o trans=virtio kernel /mnt
> > > > -oversion=9p2000.L,cache=mmap,msize=1048576 ) test: (g=0): rw=randrw,
> > >
> > > Bott
On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:05:38 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > 9p ( mount -t 9p -o trans=virtio kernel /mnt
> > > -oversion=9p2000.L,cache=mmap,msize=1048576 ) test: (g=0): rw=randrw,
> >
> > Bottleneck --^
> >
> > By increasing 'msize' you would enco
On Freitag, 25. September 2020 15:13:56 CEST Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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 j
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 xa
* Christian Schoenebeck (qemu_...@crudebyte.com) wrote:
> On Freitag, 25. September 2020 14:41:39 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > So you are running following test.
> > >
> > > fio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test
> > > --filename=random_read_write.fio --bs=4
On Freitag, 25. September 2020 14:41:39 CEST Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > 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 --outpu
* Vivek Goyal (vgo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 09:33:01PM +, 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:
>
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 identifi
31 matches
Mail list logo
