[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance
From: |
Dr. David Alan Gilbert |
Subject: |
Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:50:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) |
* Vivek Goyal (vgoyal@redhat.com) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> virtiofsd default thread pool size is 64. To me it feels that in most of
> the cases thread pool size 1 performs better than thread pool size 64.
>
> I ran virtiofs-tests.
>
> https://github.com/rhvgoyal/virtiofs-tests
>
> And here are the comparision results. To me it seems that by default
> we should switch to 1 thread (Till we can figure out how to make
> multi thread performance better even when single process is doing
> I/O in client).
>
> I am especially more interested in getting performance better for
> single process in client. If that suffers, then it is pretty bad.
>
> Especially look at randread, randwrite, seqwrite performance. seqread
> seems pretty good anyway.
>
> If I don't run who test suite and just ran randread-psync job,
> my throughput jumps from around 40MB/s to 60MB/s. That's a huge
> jump I would say.
>
> Thoughts?
What's your host setup; how many cores has the host got and how many did
you give the guest?
Dave
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
>
> NAME WORKLOAD Bandwidth IOPS
>
> cache-auto seqread-psync 690(MiB/s) 172k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-psync 729(MiB/s) 182k
>
>
> cache-auto seqread-psync-multi 2578(MiB/s) 644k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-psync-multi 2597(MiB/s) 649k
>
>
> cache-auto seqread-mmap 660(MiB/s) 165k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-mmap 672(MiB/s) 168k
>
>
> cache-auto seqread-mmap-multi 2499(MiB/s) 624k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-mmap-multi 2618(MiB/s) 654k
>
>
> cache-auto seqread-libaio 286(MiB/s) 71k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-libaio 260(MiB/s) 65k
>
>
> cache-auto seqread-libaio-multi 1508(MiB/s) 377k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqread-libaio-multi 986(MiB/s) 246k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-psync 35(MiB/s) 9191
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-psync 55(MiB/s) 13k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-psync-multi 179(MiB/s) 44k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-psync-multi 209(MiB/s) 52k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-mmap 32(MiB/s) 8273
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-mmap 50(MiB/s) 12k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-mmap-multi 161(MiB/s) 40k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-mmap-multi 185(MiB/s) 46k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-libaio 268(MiB/s) 67k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-libaio 254(MiB/s) 63k
>
>
> cache-auto randread-libaio-multi 256(MiB/s) 64k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randread-libaio-multi 155(MiB/s) 38k
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-psync 23(MiB/s) 6026
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-psync 30(MiB/s) 7925
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-psync-multi 100(MiB/s) 25k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-psync-multi 154(MiB/s) 38k
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-mmap 343(MiB/s) 85k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-mmap 355(MiB/s) 88k
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-mmap-multi 408(MiB/s) 102k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-mmap-multi 438(MiB/s) 109k
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-libaio 41(MiB/s) 10k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-libaio 65(MiB/s) 16k
>
>
> cache-auto seqwrite-libaio-multi 137(MiB/s) 34k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread seqwrite-libaio-multi 214(MiB/s) 53k
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-psync 22(MiB/s) 5801
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-psync 30(MiB/s) 7927
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-psync-multi 100(MiB/s) 25k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-psync-multi 151(MiB/s) 37k
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-mmap 31(MiB/s) 7984
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-mmap 55(MiB/s) 13k
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-mmap-multi 124(MiB/s) 31k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-mmap-multi 213(MiB/s) 53k
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-libaio 40(MiB/s) 10k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-libaio 64(MiB/s) 16k
>
>
> cache-auto randwrite-libaio-multi 139(MiB/s) 34k
>
> cache-auto-1-thread randwrite-libaio-multi 212(MiB/s) 53k
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
- tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Vivek Goyal, 2020/09/18
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2020/09/21
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance,
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <=
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2020/09/21
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2020/09/22
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Vivek Goyal, 2020/09/22
- Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance, Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos, 2020/09/24
- virtiofs vs 9p performance(Re: tools/virtiofs: Multi threading seems to hurt performance), Vivek Goyal, 2020/09/24
- Re: virtiofs vs 9p performance, Christian Schoenebeck, 2020/09/25
- Re: virtiofs vs 9p performance, Vivek Goyal, 2020/09/25
- Re: virtiofs vs 9p performance, Christian Schoenebeck, 2020/09/25