On 9 August 2010 16:55, Joshua Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Ivan Voras <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 7 August 2010 19:03, Joshua Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Ivan Voras <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> It's unlikely they will help, but try: >> >> >> >> vfs.read_max=32 >> >> >> >> for read speeds (but test using the UFS file system, not as a raw >> >> device >> >> like above), and: >> >> >> >> vfs.hirunningspace=8388608 >> >> vfs.lorunningspace=4194304 >> >> >> >> for writes. Again, it's unlikely but I'm interested in results you >> >> achieve. >> >> >> > >> > This is interesting. Write speeds went up to 40MBish. Still slow, but 4x >> > faster than before. >> > [r...@git ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/testfile bs=1M count=250 >> > 250+0 records in >> > 250+0 records out >> > 262144000 bytes transferred in 6.185955 secs (42377288 bytes/sec) >> > [r...@git ~]# dd if=/var/testfile of=/dev/null >> > 512000+0 records in >> > 512000+0 records out >> > 262144000 bytes transferred in 0.811397 secs (323077424 bytes/sec) >> > So read speeds are up to what they should be, but write speeds are still >> > significantly below what they should be. >> >> Well, you *could* double the size of "runningspace" tunables and try that >> :) >> >> Basically, in tuning these two settings we are cheating: increasing >> read-ahead (read_max) and write in-flight buffering (runningspace) in >> order to offload as much IO to the controller (in this case vmware) as >> soon as possible, so to reschedule horrible IO-caused context switches >> vmware has. It will help sequential performance, but nothing can help >> random IOs. > > Hmm. So what you're saying is that FreeBSD doesn't properly support the ESXI > controller?
Nope, I'm saying you will never get raw disk-like performance with any "full" virtualization product, regardless of specifics. If you want performance, go OS-level (like jails) or some example of paravirtualization. > I'm going to try 7.3-RELEASE today, just to make sure that this isn't a > regression of some kind. It seems from reading other posts that this used to > work properly and satisfactorily. Nope, I've been messing around with VMWare for a long time and the performance penalty was always there. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
