RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 889941 - [virtio-win][scsi] virtio_scsi driver performs bad during large buffers transfer
Summary: [virtio-win][scsi] virtio_scsi driver performs bad during large buffers transfer
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: virtio-win
Version: 6.4
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Vadim Rozenfeld
QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-12-24 05:50 UTC by Xiaomei Gao
Modified: 2017-12-06 11:15 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-12-06 11:15:40 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
iometer profile (8.74 KB, application/octet-stream)
2012-12-24 06:14 UTC, Xiaomei Gao 		no flags Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1341155 0 medium CLOSED Windows Server 2012 R2 guests poor I/O performance 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1341155

Comment 2 Xiaomei Gao 2012-12-24 06:14:33 UTC 
Created attachment 668319 [details]
iometer profile
Comment 9 Xiaomei Gao 2013-08-29 03:45:47 UTC 
hi,vadim

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

Thanks
xiaomei
Comment 10 Vadim Rozenfeld 2013-08-29 09:57:20 UTC 
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.
Comment 11 Xiaomei Gao 2013-09-04 02:28:16 UTC 
(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
Comment 12 Vadim Rozenfeld 2013-09-08 05:30:40 UTC 
please re-check with build 69 available at https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/buildinfo?buildID=293655

Thanks
Vadim.
Comment 13 Xiaomei Gao 2013-10-10 09:06:46 UTC 
(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
Comment 14 Vadim Rozenfeld 2013-10-10 11:15:25 UTC 
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.
Comment 15 Xiaomei Gao 2013-10-11 01:53:20 UTC 
(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
Comment 16 Vadim Rozenfeld 2013-10-11 05:45:05 UTC 
Hi Xiaomei,
Could you please upload the relevant crash dump file?
It will be very helpful.

Thanks,
Vadim.
Comment 29 Vadim Rozenfeld 2016-10-27 05:27:32 UTC 
Can we retest it again with the latest drivers?

Thanks,
Vadim.
Comment 30 Yanhui Ma 2016-10-28 02:35:58 UTC 
(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.
Comment 31 Yanhui Ma 2016-11-01 07:02:03 UTC 
(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.
Comment 32 Amnon Ilan 2016-11-01 19:27:15 UTC 
(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?
Comment 33 Yanhui Ma 2016-11-02 02:48:35 UTC 
(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.
Comment 34 Vadim Rozenfeld 2016-11-02 05:11:20 UTC 
(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.
Comment 35 Yanhui Ma 2016-11-02 05:34:52 UTC 
(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.
Comment 36 Vadim Rozenfeld 2016-11-02 07:33:41 UTC 
(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.
Comment 37 Vadim Rozenfeld 2016-11-03 23:31:35 UTC 
Will it be possible to retest the same configurations, with "hv_time" flag  enabled on rhel7?
Thanks,
Vadim.
Comment 38 Yanhui Ma 2016-11-07 02:11:00 UTC 
(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.
Comment 39 Yanhui Ma 2016-11-22 09:52:37 UTC 
(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.
Comment 41 Jan Kurik 2017-12-06 11:15:40 UTC 
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/
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.