Bug 1023894
| Summary: | [virtio-win][viostor] Write/Randwrite IOPS is poor when block size is 256k and iodepth is 64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Xiaomei Gao <xigao> |
| Component: | virtio-win | Assignee: | Vadim Rozenfeld <vrozenfe> |
| virtio-win sub component: | virtio-win-prewhql | QA Contact: | Yanhui Ma <yama> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | ||
| Priority: | medium | CC: | ailan, hhuang, juzhang, knoel, lijin, michen, phou, qzhang, rbalakri, rpacheco, virt-maint, vrozenfe, wquan, yama |
| Version: | 7.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | 7.0 | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-11-09 07:38:36 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1288337 | ||
In all the other cases there was no regression (actually in improvement). Deferring to 7.1. can we it a try on 7.5 host (especially with multi-queue feature enabled)? It also will be quite useful to compare ide vs virtio-blk vs virtio-scsi performance data again. Thanks, Vadim (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #7) > can we it a try on 7.5 host (especially with multi-queue feature enabled)? > Hello Vadim, Now we don't have tree, qemu and kernel for 7.5 in downstream. Do I need to use upstream? or try it on 7.4. Thanks, Yanhui > It also will be quite useful to compare ide vs virtio-blk vs virtio-scsi > performance data again. > > Thanks, > Vadim (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #9) > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #7) > > can we it a try on 7.5 host (especially with multi-queue feature enabled)? > > > > Hello Vadim, > > Now we don't have tree, qemu and kernel for 7.5 in downstream. Do I need to > use upstream? or try it on 7.4. > upstream should be fine. Thanks, Vadim. > Thanks, > Yanhui > > It also will be quite useful to compare ide vs virtio-blk vs virtio-scsi > > performance data again. > > > > Thanks, > > Vadim (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #7) > can we it a try on 7.5 host (especially with multi-queue feature enabled)? > > It also will be quite useful to compare ide vs virtio-blk vs virtio-scsi > performance data again. > Hello Vadim, Here are results comparing ide vs virtio_blk, even if without multi-queue, there is obvious improvement for virtio_blk compared with ide, no performance regression is found. http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug1023894/idevsblk/raw.ide.*.Win2012.x86_64.html host qemu: qemu-2.10.0-rc3(./configure --enable-kvm --enable-linux-aio --enable-tcmalloc --enable-spice --target-list=x86_64-softmmu) host kernel: kernel-3.10.0-702.el7.x86_64 virtio_win driver: virtio-win-1.9.3-1.el7 virtio_blk vs virtio_scsi: http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug1023894/blkvsscsi/raw.ide.*.Win2012.x86_64.html No obvious performance difference between virtio_blk and virtio_scsi. > Thanks, > Vadim (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #11) > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #7) > > can we it a try on 7.5 host (especially with multi-queue feature enabled)? > > > > It also will be quite useful to compare ide vs virtio-blk vs virtio-scsi > > performance data again. > > > > Hello Vadim, > Here are results comparing ide vs virtio_blk, even if without multi-queue, > there is obvious improvement for virtio_blk compared with ide, no > performance regression is found. > > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug1023894/idevsblk/ > raw.ide.*.Win2012.x86_64.html > > host qemu: qemu-2.10.0-rc3(./configure --enable-kvm --enable-linux-aio > --enable-tcmalloc --enable-spice --target-list=x86_64-softmmu) > host kernel: kernel-3.10.0-702.el7.x86_64 > virtio_win driver: virtio-win-1.9.3-1.el7 > > virtio_blk vs virtio_scsi: > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug1023894/blkvsscsi/ > raw.ide.*.Win2012.x86_64.html > > No obvious performance difference between virtio_blk and virtio_scsi. > > > > Thanks, > > Vadim Thanks a lot Yanhui. It really doesn't look bad now. We will probably close this bug soon. All the best, Vadim. Closing the issue, based on the above results. |
Description of problem: On Window2008R2/Win2012 platform, write/randwrite IOPS of virtio_blk driver degrades ~8%-%17% compared to ide driver only when block size is 256k and iodepth is 64. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.405.el6.x86_64 kernel-2.6.32-420.el6.x86_64 virtio-win-prewhql-0.1-72 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Setup - Bechmark: fio (direct io) - Storage Backend: raw SSD - Block I/O elevator:deadline 2. Boot up Window2008R2/Win2012 guest with raw SSD /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm \ -name 'virt-tests-vm1' \ -nodefaults \ -drive file='/usr/local/autotest/tests/virt/shared/data/images/win2008r2-64.raw',index=0,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk1,media=disk,cache=none,snapshot=off,format=raw,aio=native \ -device virtio-blk-pci,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4,drive=drive-virtio-disk1,bootindex=0 \ -drive file='/dev/sdb',index=2,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk2,media=disk,cache=none,snapshot=off,format=raw,aio=native \ -device virtio-blk-pci,bus=pci.0,addr=0x5,drive=drive-virtio-disk2,bootindex=1 \ -device rtl8139,netdev=idmnve6x,mac='9a:37:37:37:37:8e',bus=pci.0,addr=0x6,id='idosVDhd' \ -netdev tap,id=idmnve6x \ -m 4096 \ -smp 2,maxcpus=2,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=2 \ -cpu 'Westmere' \ -M rhel6.5.0 \ -drive file='/usr/local/autotest/tests/virt/shared/data/isos/windows/winutils.iso',index=1,if=none,id=drive-ide0-0-0,media=cdrom,format=raw \ -device ide-drive,bus=ide.0,unit=0,drive=drive-ide0-0-0 \ -vnc :0 \ -vga cirrus \ -rtc base=localtime,clock=host,driftfix=slew \ -device sga \ -enable-kvm 3. Do fio test in windows guest C:\fio-2.0.15-x64\fio.exe --rw=write/randwrite --bs=256k --iodepth=64 --runtime=1m --direct=1 --filename=\\.\PHYSICALDRIVE1 --name=job1 --ioengine=windowsaio --thread --group_reporting --numjobs=16 --size=512MB --time_based Actual results: - Window2008r2 platform +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Category | block_size | iodepth | IDE IOPS | VIRTIO_BLK IOPS| VS | +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Write | 256K | 64 | 359 | 296 |-17.549% | +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Randwrite | 256K | 64 | 330 | 276 |-16.330% | +-----------+------------+---------+-------------------------------------+ - Win2012.x86_64 platform +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Category | block_size | iodepth | IDE IOPS | VIRTIO_BLK IOPS| VS | +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Write | 256K | 64 | 347 | 316 |-8.934% | +-----------+------------+---------+----------+----------------+---------+ | Randwrite | 256K | 64 | 324 | 276 |-14.815% | +-----------+------------+---------+-------------------------------------+ Expected results: The performance of virtio_blk driver should be better than ide driver. Additional info: