| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJSP0QXj0brxkTRGCMcjYU3AZwFbk+O5D2ATNz8GLECt9rNs7w@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:58:54 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com> To: Asias He <asias@...hat.com> Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Improve virtio-blk performance On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Asias He <asias@...hat.com> wrote: > On 06/18/2012 05:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Asias He <asias@...hat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Fio test shows it gives, 28%, 24%, 21%, 16% IOPS boost and 32%, 17%, 21%, >>> 16% >>> latency improvement for sequential read/write, random read/write >>> respectively. >> >> >> Sounds great. What storage configuration did you use (single spinning >> disk, SSD, storage array) and are these numbers for parallel I/O or >> sequential I/O? > > > I used ramdisk as the backend storage. As long as the latency is decreasing that's good. But It's worth keeping in mind that these percentages are probably wildly different on real storage devices and/or qemu-kvm. What we don't know here is whether this bottleneck matters in real environments - results with real storage and with qemu-kvm would be interesting. Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists