Bug 889941

Created attachment 668319 [details]
iometer profile

hi,vadim

  Which build includes the fixed patch? We will verify the issue.

Thanks
xiaomei

Hi Xiaomei,
please try the latest build (68): http://download.devel.redhat.com/brewroot/work/tasks/7431/6217431/virtio-win-prewhql-0.1.zip

Thank you,
Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #10)
> Hi Xiaomei,
> please try the latest build (68):
> http://download.devel.redhat.com/brewroot/work/tasks/7431/6217431/virtio-win-
> prewhql-0.1.zip

  Do IO test on virtio_scsi driver disk and guest BSOD. BSOD code is the same as bug 1001616 and bug 996951 .  

Best Regards
Xiaomei

please re-check with build 69 available at https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/buildinfo?buildID=293655

Thanks
Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #12)
> please re-check with build 69 available at
> https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/buildinfo?buildID=293655

Verify this bug on virtio-win-prewhql-0.1-72, but it is blocked by Bug 1017529.

Thanks
Xiaomei

Hi Xiaomei,
Bug 1017529 seems to be the serous bug,
but I believe shouldn't hit this problem 
on a system running with one virtio-scsi
device only. I will much appreciate if 
you can give it a try.

Thanks,
Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #14)
> Hi Xiaomei,
> Bug 1017529 seems to be the serous bug,
> but I believe shouldn't hit this problem 
> on a system running with one virtio-scsi
> device only. I will much appreciate if 
> you can give it a try.

Hi, Vadim

I tried it for many times with both iometer and fio benchmark for one virtio-scsi
device, unfortunately, guest always hit BSOD since the test beginning and we can't get results.

Thanks
Xiaomei

Hi Xiaomei,
Could you please upload the relevant crash dump file?
It will be very helpful.

Thanks,
Vadim.

Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?

Thanks,
Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> 
Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1

host:
qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6

> Thanks,
> Vadim.

(In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > 
> Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> 
> host:
> qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> 

Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:

http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html

No regression is found.

> > Thanks,
> > Vadim.

(In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #31)
> (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > > 
> > Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> > 
> > host:
> > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> > kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> > 
> 
> Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:
> 
> http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.
> virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html
> 
> No regression is found.

Can you elaborate on that? regression compared to what?

(In reply to Amnon Ilan from comment #32)
> (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #31)
> > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> > > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > > > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > > > 
> > > Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> > > 
> > > host:
> > > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> > > kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> > > 
> > 
> > Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:
> > 
> > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.
> > virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html
> > 
> > No regression is found.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that? regression compared to what?

It is comparison between ide and virtio_scsi.
As requested by Vadim in comment 29, I retest performance between ide and virtio_scsi with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1. From results, we can see throughput of virtio_scsi is almost the same as ide. There is no obvious and consistent degradation with iodepth=64 as described by comment 24.

(In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #33)
> (In reply to Amnon Ilan from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #31)
> > > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> > > > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > > > > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > > > > 
> > > > Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> > > > 
> > > > host:
> > > > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> > > > kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:
> > > 
> > > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.
> > > virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html
> > > 
> > > No regression is found.
> > 
> > Can you elaborate on that? regression compared to what?
> 
> It is comparison between ide and virtio_scsi.
> As requested by Vadim in comment 29, I retest performance between ide and
> virtio_scsi with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1. From results, we can see
> throughput of virtio_scsi is almost the same as ide. There is no obvious and

And it looks very strange, we would expect way better performance from virtio_scsi on small blocks and the same performance as ide on large bolcks.


> consistent degradation with iodepth=64 as described by comment 24.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #34)
> (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #33)
> > (In reply to Amnon Ilan from comment #32)
> > > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #31)
> > > > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> > > > > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > > > > > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> > > > > 
> > > > > host:
> > > > > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> > > > > kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:
> > > > 
> > > > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.
> > > > virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html
> > > > 
> > > > No regression is found.
> > > 
> > > Can you elaborate on that? regression compared to what?
> > 
> > It is comparison between ide and virtio_scsi.
> > As requested by Vadim in comment 29, I retest performance between ide and
> > virtio_scsi with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1. From results, we can see
> > throughput of virtio_scsi is almost the same as ide. There is no obvious and
> 
> And it looks very strange, we would expect way better performance from
> virtio_scsi on small blocks and the same performance as ide on large bolcks.
> 
Hi Vadim,

Compared with steps in comment 0, my steps are a little different, I don't format disk into NTFS in windows guest, and I run fio in raw disk, not NTFS.
Does it matter?



> 
> > consistent degradation with iodepth=64 as described by comment 24.

(In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #35)
> (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #34)
> > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #33)
> > > (In reply to Amnon Ilan from comment #32)
> > > > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #31)
> > > > > (In reply to Yanhui Ma from comment #30)
> > > > > > (In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #29)
> > > > > > > Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok, I will retest it in RHEL6.8.z host with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > host:
> > > > > > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.491.el6_8.3
> > > > > > kernel-2.6.32-642.11.1.el6
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here are results of win2012r2.x86_64 with above component version:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/raw.*.smp2.
> > > > > virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > No regression is found.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you elaborate on that? regression compared to what?
> > > 
> > > It is comparison between ide and virtio_scsi.
> > > As requested by Vadim in comment 29, I retest performance between ide and
> > > virtio_scsi with virtio-win-1.7.5-0.el6_8.1. From results, we can see
> > > throughput of virtio_scsi is almost the same as ide. There is no obvious and
> > 
> > And it looks very strange, we would expect way better performance from
> > virtio_scsi on small blocks and the same performance as ide on large bolcks.
> > 
> Hi Vadim,
> 
> Compared with steps in comment 0, my steps are a little different, I don't
> format disk into NTFS in windows guest, and I run fio in raw disk, not NTFS.
> Does it matter?

No, it shouldn't. Raw partition should be even more preferable, because it doesn't introduce any file system specific "features". 
I will try to run the same tests on my setup to see what can lead to such strange results.

Best regards,
Vadim.

> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > consistent degradation with iodepth=64 as described by comment 24.

Will it be possible to retest the same configurations, with "hv_time" flag  enabled on rhel7?
Thanks,
Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #37)
> Will it be possible to retest the same configurations, with "hv_time" flag 
> enabled on rhel7?
ok, I will test win2012r2_x86_64 with "hv_time" flag on rhel7 host when the machine is available.
> Thanks,
> Vadim.

(In reply to Vadim Rozenfeld from comment #37)
> Will it be possible to retest the same configurations, with "hv_time" flag 
> enabled on rhel7?


I retested win2012r2_x86_64 with "hv_time" flag enabled on rhel7.3 host with virtio-win-1.9.0-3.el7.

host:
qemu-kvm-rhev-2.6.0-22.el7.x86_64
kernel-3.10.0-514.el7.x86_64

Here are results comparison between ide and virtio_scsi.
http://kvm-perf.englab.nay.redhat.com/results/request/bug889941/hv_time_on/raw.*.smp2.virtio_net.Win2012r2.x86_64.fio_win.html

Throughput is still almost the same between ide and virtio_scsi.
> Thanks,
> Vadim.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is in the Production 3 Phase. During the Production 3 Phase, Critical impact Security Advisories (RHSAs) and selected Urgent Priority Bug Fix Advisories (RHBAs) may be released as they become available.

The official life cycle policy can be reviewed here:

http://redhat.com/rhel/lifecycle

This issue does not meet the inclusion criteria for the Production 3 Phase and will be marked as CLOSED/WONTFIX. If this remains a critical requirement, please contact Red Hat Customer Support to request a re-evaluation of the issue, citing a clear business justification. Note that a strong business justification will be required for re-evaluation. Red Hat Customer Support can be contacted via the Red Hat Customer Portal at the following URL:

https://access.redhat.com/