Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
On 09/25/2009 12:07 AM, Dor Laor wrote: On 09/24/2009 11:59 PM, Javier Guerra wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Kenni Lundke...@kelu.dk wrote: I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? very interesting! it seems that IDE wins on all the performance numbers, but VirtIO always has lower CPU utilization. i guess this is guest CPU %, right? it would also be interesting to compare the CPU usage from the host point of view, since a lower 'off-guest' CPU usage is very important for scaling to many guests doing I/O. Can you re-try it with setting the host ioscheduler to deadline? Virtio backend (thread pool) is sensitive for it. These drivers are mainly tweaked for win2k3 and win2k8. We once had queue depth settings in the driver, not sure we still have it, Vadim, can you add more info? Also virtio should provide IO parallelism as opposed to IDE. I don't think your test test it. Virtio can provide more virtual drives than the max 4 that ide offers. Dor Windows XP 32-bit virtio block driver was created from our mainline code almost for fun. Not like our mainline code, which is STORPORT oriented, it is a SCSIPORT () mini-port driver. SCSIPORT has never been known as I/O optimized storage stack. SCSIPORT architecture is almost dead officially. Windows XP 32-bit has no support for STORPORT or virtual storage stack. Developing monolithic disk driver, which will sit right on top of virtio-blk PCI device, looks like the one way to have some kind of high throughput storage for Windows XP 32-bit. Regards, Vadim. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
2009/9/25 Vadim Rozenfeld vroze...@redhat.com: On 09/25/2009 12:07 AM, Dor Laor wrote: On 09/24/2009 11:59 PM, Javier Guerra wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Kenni Lundke...@kelu.dk wrote: I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? very interesting! it seems that IDE wins on all the performance numbers, but VirtIO always has lower CPU utilization. i guess this is guest CPU %, right? it would also be interesting to compare the CPU usage from the host point of view, since a lower 'off-guest' CPU usage is very important for scaling to many guests doing I/O. These drivers are mainly tweaked for win2k3 and win2k8. We once had queue depth settings in the driver, not sure we still have it, Vadim, can you add more info? Dor Windows XP 32-bit virtio block driver was created from our mainline code almost for fun. Not like our mainline code, which is STORPORT oriented, it is a SCSIPORT () mini-port driver. SCSIPORT has never been known as I/O optimized storage stack. SCSIPORT architecture is almost dead officially. Windows XP 32-bit has no support for STORPORT or virtual storage stack. Ok, in that case, wouldn't it be better simply not to build the XP driver and instead put a note somewhere (in the wiki?), saying that it doesn't make sense to use VirtIO on XP due to these reasons? Developing monolithic disk driver, which will sit right on top of virtio-blk PCI device, looks like the one way to have some kind of high throughput storage for Windows XP 32-bit. Ok, since these drivers are targeted Windows Server and XP is getting old, I suppose no efforts will be put into developing such driver, or? Best Regards, Kenni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
On 09/25/2009 10:53 AM, Kenni Lund wrote: 2009/9/25 Vadim Rozenfeldvroze...@redhat.com: On 09/25/2009 12:07 AM, Dor Laor wrote: On 09/24/2009 11:59 PM, Javier Guerra wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Kenni Lundke...@kelu.dkwrote: I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? very interesting! it seems that IDE wins on all the performance numbers, but VirtIO always has lower CPU utilization. i guess this is guest CPU %, right? it would also be interesting to compare the CPU usage from the host point of view, since a lower 'off-guest' CPU usage is very important for scaling to many guests doing I/O. These drivers are mainly tweaked for win2k3 and win2k8. We once had queue depth settings in the driver, not sure we still have it, Vadim, can you add more info? Dor Windows XP 32-bit virtio block driver was created from our mainline code almost for fun. Not like our mainline code, which is STORPORT oriented, it is a SCSIPORT () mini-port driver. SCSIPORT has never been known as I/O optimized storage stack. SCSIPORT architecture is almost dead officially. Windows XP 32-bit has no support for STORPORT or virtual storage stack. Ok, in that case, wouldn't it be better simply not to build the XP driver and instead put a note somewhere (in the wiki?), saying that it doesn't make sense to use VirtIO on XP due to these reasons? I have no idea what was the reason for building and announcing XP 32bit driver. I mean, technically it is possible. You can also expect less CPU consumption by switching to SCSIPORT virtio driver. But please don't expect any significant performance burst. Developing monolithic disk driver, which will sit right on top of virtio-blk PCI device, looks like the one way to have some kind of high throughput storage for Windows XP 32-bit. Ok, since these drivers are targeted Windows Server and XP is getting old, I suppose no efforts will be put into developing such driver, or? I don't know, but why not? It shouldn't be too complicated. Best Regards, Kenni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Binary Windows guest drivers are released
Hello All, I am happy to announce that the Windows guest drivers binaries are released. http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/WindowsGuestDrivers/Download_Drivers Best regards, Yan Vugenfirer. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
2009/9/24 Yan Vugenfirer yvuge...@redhat.com: Hello All, I am happy to announce that the Windows guest drivers binaries are released. Thank you, I've been waiting for this for quite a while :) I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? I created two raw images of 5GB and attached them to a WinXP SP3 virtual machine with: -drive file=virtio.img,if=virtio -drive file=ide.img,if=ide I installed the VirtIO drivers, rebooted, formatted the new virtual HDDs with NTFS and downloaded IOMeter. Three different test were run; database workload (Default in IOmeter), maximum read throughput and maximum write throughput (settings taken from IOmeter documentation). All results are the average of two individual runs of the test. Each test ran for 3 minutes. -- Typical database workload (default in Iometer: 2kb, 67% read, 33% write, 100% random, 0% sequential) -- Total I/Os per sec: IDE: 86,67 VirtIO: 66,84 Total MBs per second: IDE: 0,17MB/sec VirtIO: 0,13MB/sec Average I/O response time: IDE: 11,59ms VirtIO: 14,96ms Maximum I/O response time: IDE: 177,06ms VirtIO: 244,52ms % CPU Utilization: IDE: 3,15% VirtIO: 2,55% -- Maximum reading throughput (64kb, 100% read, 0% write, 0% random, 100% sequential) -- Total I/Os per sec: IDE: 3266,17 VirtIO: 2694,34 Total MBs per second: IDE: 204,14MB/sec VirtIO: 168,40MB/sec Average I/O response time: IDE: 0,3053ms VirtIO: 0,3710ms Maximum I/O response time: IDE: 210,60ms VirtIO: 180,65ms % CPU Utilization: IDE: 70,4% VirtIO: 55,66% -- Maximum writing throughput (64kb, 0% read, 100% write, 0% random, 100% sequential) -- Total I/Os per sec: IDE: 258,92 VirtIO: 123,69 Total MBs per second: IDE: 16,18MB/sec VirtIO: 7,74MB/sec Average I/O response time: IDE: 3,89ms VirtIO: 8,17ms Maximum I/O response time: IDE: 241,99ms VirtIO: 838,19ms % CPU Utilization: IDE: 8,21% VirtIO: 4,88% This was tested on a Arch Linux host with kernel 2.6.30.6 64bit and kvm-88. One CPU and 2GB of RAM was assigned to the virtual machine. Is this expected behaviour? Thanks again for your effort on the VirtIO drivers :) Best Regards Kenni Lund -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Kenni Lund ke...@kelu.dk wrote: I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? very interesting! it seems that IDE wins on all the performance numbers, but VirtIO always has lower CPU utilization. i guess this is guest CPU %, right? it would also be interesting to compare the CPU usage from the host point of view, since a lower 'off-guest' CPU usage is very important for scaling to many guests doing I/O. -- Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Binary Windows guest drivers are released
On 09/24/2009 11:59 PM, Javier Guerra wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Kenni Lundke...@kelu.dk wrote: I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit, but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE drivers in (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver still need optimization? very interesting! it seems that IDE wins on all the performance numbers, but VirtIO always has lower CPU utilization. i guess this is guest CPU %, right? it would also be interesting to compare the CPU usage from the host point of view, since a lower 'off-guest' CPU usage is very important for scaling to many guests doing I/O. Can you re-try it with setting the host ioscheduler to deadline? Virtio backend (thread pool) is sensitive for it. These drivers are mainly tweaked for win2k3 and win2k8. We once had queue depth settings in the driver, not sure we still have it, Vadim, can you add more info? Also virtio should provide IO parallelism as opposed to IDE. I don't think your test test it. Virtio can provide more virtual drives than the max 4 that ide offers. Dor -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
