#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 01/06/2015 13:16, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
259,0 31 385 0.719283423 10729 Q WS 29376775 + 248 [qemu-io]
259,0 31 388 0.719287600 10729 Q WS 29377023 + 8 [qemu-io]
259,0 31 391
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
On 13/05/2015 18:46, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
I agree with this. Kernel guys are aware and may be we will have
the fix after a while... I have heard (not tested) that performance
loss over multi-queue SSD is around 30%.
I came up with this patch... can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/06/2015 12:34, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
Yes. Improvement is not huge, but it can be detected for old qemu
unpatched kernel: 728 MiB/sec ± 20Mb patched kernel : 748 MiB/sec
± 10Mb
Ok, so about 3-4%. What does the blktrace look like with
On 13/05/2015 18:46, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
I agree with this. Kernel guys are aware and may be we will have
the fix after a while... I have heard (not tested) that performance
loss over multi-queue SSD is around 30%.
I came up with this patch... can you test it with your test case
(and old
On 13/05/15 18:43, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:46:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 12/05/2015 12:19, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
hades /vol $ strace -f -e pwrite -e raw=write,pwrite qemu-io -n -c
write -P 0x11 0 64M ./1.img
Process 19326 attached
[pid 19326] pwrite(0x6,
On 12/05/15 13:01, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:47:41PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/05/15 19:07, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/05/15 18:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
The difference is quite reliable and
On 12/05/2015 12:19, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
hades /vol $ strace -f -e pwrite -e raw=write,pwrite qemu-io -n -c
write -P 0x11 0 64M ./1.img
Process 19326 attached
[pid 19326] pwrite(0x6, 0x7fac07fff200, 0x400, 0x5) = 0x400
1 GB Write from userspace
FWIW this is 64 MB
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:47:41PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/05/15 19:07, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/05/15 18:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
The difference is quite reliable and the same 5%.
qemu-io -n -c 'write -P 0xaa
On 11/05/15 18:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
The difference is quite reliable and the same 5%.
qemu-io -n -c 'write -P 0xaa 0 1G' 1.img
for image in qcow2 format is 1% faster.
I looked a little at the qemu-io invocation but am not
On 11/05/15 19:07, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 11/05/15 18:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
The difference is quite reliable and the same 5%.
qemu-io -n -c 'write -P 0xaa 0 1G' 1.img
for image in qcow2 format is 1% faster.
I looked a
The following sequence
int fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_DIRECT, 0644);
for (i = 0; i 10; i++)
write(fd, buf, 4096);
iperforms 5% better if buf is aligned to 4096 bytes rather then to
512 bytes.
I have used the following program to test
#define _GNU_SOURCE
11 matches
Mail list logo
