, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that I have removed the benchmark from discussion, we are now
looking at semantics of small writes followed by
...
And quoting from Dustin
===
I have tried this, exactly as you have described. The tests took
No, it's an absurd assessment.
You have additional layers of caching happening because you're running a
guest from a filesystem on the host.
Comments below.
A benchmark running under a guest that happens do be faster than the
host does not indicate anything. It could be that the
.
Is that assessment correct?
Regards,
Matthew
Original Message
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
From: Dustin Kirkland dustin.kirkl...@gmail.com
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com, Anthony Liguori
anth...@codemonkey.ws, Avi Kivity
be relevant for how they support their customers.
Regards,
Matthew
Original Message
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com
Cc: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com, RW k
and
upstream changes that may be relevant for how they support their customers.
Regards,
Matthew
Original Message
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com
Cc: Avi Kivity
Original Message
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
From: Dustin Kirkland dustin.kirkl...@gmail.com
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com
Cc: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws, Avi Kivity
a...@redhat.com, RW k...@tauceti.net, kvm
Original Message
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
From: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com
Cc: Dustin Kirkland dustin.kirkl...@gmail.com, Anthony Liguori
anth...@codemonkey.ws, RW k...@tauceti.net, kvm
performance
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
To: Matthew Tippett tippe...@gmail.com
Cc: Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com, RW k...@tauceti.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Date: 09/29/2009 03:02 PM
Matthew Tippett wrote:
I have created a launchpad bug against qemu-kvm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net
I have created a launchpad bug against qemu-kvm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu-kvm/+bug/437473
Just re-iterating, my concern isn't so much performance, but integrity
of stock KVM configurations with server or other workloads that expect
sync fileIO requests to be
a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/24/2009 10:49 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote:
The test itself is a simple usage of SQLite. It is stock KVM as
available in 2.6.31 on Ubuntu Karmic. So it would be the environment,
not the test.
So assuming that KVM upstream works as expected that would leave
either 2.6.31
a synchronous write of the virtual
device within the host?
I don't think offering SQLite users a 10 fold increase in performance
with no data integrity risks just by using KVM is a sane proposition.
Regards... Matthew
On 9/24/09, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/23/2009 06:58 PM, Matthew Tippett
.
Regards... Matthew
On 9/24/09, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/24/2009 03:31 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote:
Thanks Avi,
I am still trying to reconcile the your statement with the potential
data risks and the numbers observed.
My read of your response is that the guest sees a consistent view
that a 'correctly'
configured KVM will not demonstrate this behaviour?
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/ (or is already available in newer
distributions of Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu.
Regards... Matthew
On 9/24/09, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/24/2009 03:31 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote
Hi,
I would like to call attention to the SQLite performance under KVM in
the current Ubuntu Alpha.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_2631_kvmnum=3
SQLite's benchmark as part of the Phoronix Test Suite is typically IO
limited and is affected by both disk and filesystem
14 matches
Mail list logo
