On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Gabriel Ozaki <gabriel.ozaki@kemi.com.br> wrote:
Hi Yaniv
This results is averange in sysbench, my machine for example gets 1.3905Mb/sec, i don't know how this test really works and i will search about it
So i try to make a* bonnie++ test* ( reference http://support.commgate.net/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/212 ):
Xenserver speeds: Write speed: 91076 KB/sec ReWrite speed: 57885 KB/sec Read speed: 215457 KB/sec (Strange, too high) Num of Blocks: 632.4
Ovirt Speeds: Write speed: 111597 KB/sec (22% more then xenserver) ReWrite speed: 73402 KB/sec (26% more then xenserver) Read speed: 121537 KB/sec (44% less then xenserver) Num of Blocks: 537.2 ( 15% less then xenserver)
result: a draw?
Perhaps - depends on what you wish to measure.
And* DD test *( reference: https://romanrm.net/dd-benchmark )*:* [root@xenserver teste]# echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches && sync [root@xenserver teste]# dd bs=1M count=256 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
fdatasync is the wrong choice - it still caches (but again, I'm not sure what you are trying to measure). You should use direct IO (oflag=direct) if you are interested in pure IO data path performance . Note that most applications do not: 1. Write sequentially (especially not VMs) 2. Write 1MB blocks. 256+0 registros de entrada
256+0 registros de saída 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copiados, 1,40111 s, 192 MB/s (Again, too high)
Perhaps the disk is caching?
[root@ovirt teste]# echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches && sync [root@ovirt teste]# dd bs=1M count=256 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 256+0 registros de entrada 256+0 registros de saída 268435456 bytes (268 MB) copiados, 2,31288 s, 116 MB/s (Really fair, the host result is 124 MB/s)
*HDparm *(FAIL on xenserver) [root@xenserver teste]# hdparm -Tt /dev/xvda1
/dev/xvda1: Timing cached reads: 25724 MB in 2.00 seconds = 12882.77 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 2984 MB in 3.00 seconds = 994.43 MB/sec ( 8 times the expect value, something is very wrong)
[root@ovirt teste]# hdparm -Tt /dev/vda1
/dev/vda1: Timing cached reads: 25042 MB in 2.00 seconds = 12540.21 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 306 MB in 3.01 seconds = 101.66 MB/sec(ok result)
There is something strange in xenserver affecting the results, probably the best choice is close the thread and start the studies about benchmarks
Agreed. It's not easy, it's sometimes more art than science, but first of all you need to define what you wish to benchmark exactly. I warmly suggest you look more into real life applications rather than synthetic benchmarks, but if you insist, I warmly recommend fio ( https://github.com/axboe/fio) HTH, Y.
Thanks
2016-09-05 12:01 GMT-03:00 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com>:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Gabriel Ozaki <gabriel.ozaki@kemi.com.br> wrote:
Hi Yaniv and Sandro
The disk is in the same machine then ovirt-engine
I'm looking back at your results, and something is terribly wrong there: For example, sysbench:
Host result: 2.9843Mb/sec Ovirt result: 1.1561Mb/sec Xenserver result: 2.9006Mb/sec
This is slower than a USB1 disk on key performance. I don't know what to make of it, but it's completely bogus. Even plain QEMU can get better results than this. And the 2nd benchmark:
**The novabench test:* Ovirt result: 79Mb/s Xenserver result: 101Mb/s
This is better, but still very slow. If I translate it to MB/s, it's ~10-12MBs - still very very slow. If, however, this is MB/sec, then this makes sense - and is probably as much as you can get from a single spindle. The difference between XenServer and oVirt are more likely have to do with caching than anything else. I don't know what the caching settings of XenServer - can you ensure no caching ('direct IO') is used?
Thanks
2016-09-02 15:31 GMT-03:00 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com>:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Gabriel Ozaki < gabriel.ozaki@kemi.com.br> wrote:
Hi Yaniv
Sorry guys, i don't explain well on my first mail, i notice a bad IO performance on *disk* benchmarks, the network are working really fine
But where is the disk? If it's across the network, then network is involved and is certainly a bottleneck. Y.
2016-09-02 12:04 GMT-03:00 Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com>:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Gabriel Ozaki < gabriel.ozaki@kemi.com.br> wrote:
> Hi Nir, thanks for the answer > > > *The nfs server is in the host?* > Yes, i choose NFS to use as storage on ovirt host > > *- Is this 2.9GiB/s or 2.9 MiB/s?* > Is MiB/s, i put the full test on paste bin > centos guest on ovirt: > http://pastebin.com/d48qfvuf > > centos guest on xenserver: > http://pastebin.com/gqN3du29 > > how the test works: > https://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-benchmark-your-system-cpu- > file-io-mysql-with-sysbench > > *- Are you testing using NFS in all versions?* > i am using the v3 version > > *- What is the disk format?* > partion size format > / 20Gb xfs > swap 2 Gb xfs > /dados rest of disk xfs (note, this is the partition where i save > the ISOs,exports and VM disks) > > > *- How do you test io on the host?* > I do a clean install of centos and do the test before i install the > ovirt > the test: > http://pastebin.com/7RKU7778 > > *- What kind of nic is used? (1G, 10G?)* > Is only a 100mbps :( >
100Mbps will not get you more than several MB/s. 11MB/s on a very bright day...
> > *We need much more details to understand what do you test here.* > I have problems to upload the benchmark test on orvirt to novabench > site, so here is the screenshot(i make a mistake on the last email i get > the wrong value), is 86 Mb/s: >
Which is not possible on the wire. Unless it's VM to VM? And the storage is local, which means it's the bandwidth of the physical disk itself? Y.
> > > And the novabench on xenserver: > https://novabench.com/compare.php?id=ba8dd628e4042dfc1f3d396 > 70b164ab11061671 > > *- For Xenserver - detailed description of the vm and the storage > configuration?* > The host is the same(i install xenserver, do the tests before i > install centos), the VM i use the same configuration of ovirt, 2 cores, 4 > Gb of ram and 60 Gb disk(in the default xenserver SR) > > *- For ovirt, can you share the vm command line, available in > /var/log/libvirt/qemu/vmname.**log?* > 2016-09-01 12:50:28.268+0000: starting up libvirt version: 1.2.17, > package: 13.el7_2.5 (CentOS BuildSystem <http://bugs.centos.org>, > 2016-06-23-14:23:27, worker1.bsys.centos.org), qemu version: 2.3.0 > (qemu-kvm-ev-2.3.0-31.el7.16.1) > LC_ALL=C PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin > QEMU_AUDIO_DRV=none /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -name vmcentos -S -machine > pc-i440fx-rhel7.2.0,accel=kvm,usb=off -cpu Haswell-noTSX -m > size=4194304k,slots=16,maxmem=4294967296k -realtime mlock=off -smp > 2,maxcpus=16,sockets=16,cores=1,threads=1 -numa > node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-1,mem=4096 -uuid 21872e4b-7699-4502-b1ef-2c058eff1c3c > -smbios type=1,manufacturer=oVirt,product=oVirt > Node,version=7-2.1511.el7.centos.2.10,serial=03AA02FC-0414-0 > 5F8-D906-710700080009,uuid=21872e4b-7699-4502-b1ef-2c058eff1c3c > -no-user-config -nodefaults -chardev socket,id=charmonitor,path=/va > r/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-vmcentos/monitor.sock,server,nowait -mon > chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control -rtc > base=2016-09-01T09:50:28,driftfix=slew -global > kvm-pit.lost_tick_policy=discard -no-hpet -no-shutdown -boot > strict=on -device piix3-usb-uhci,id=usb,bus=pci.0,addr=0x1.0x2 > -device virtio-scsi-pci,id=scsi0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3 -device > virtio-serial-pci,id=virtio-serial0,max_ports=16,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4 > -drive file=/rhev/data-center/mnt/ovirt.kemi.intranet:_dados_iso/52 > ee9f87-9d38-48ec-8003-193262f81994/images/11111111-1111-1111 > -1111-111111111111/CentOS-7-x86_64-NetInstall-1511.iso,if=no > ne,id=drive-ide0-1-0,readonly=on,format=raw -device > ide-cd,bus=ide.1,unit=0,drive=drive-ide0-1-0,id=ide0-1-0,bootindex=2 > -drive file=/rhev/data-center/00000001-0001-0001-0001-0000000002bb/ > 4ccdd1f3-ee79-4425-b6ed-5774643003fa/images/2ecfcf18-ae84-4e > 73-922f-28b9cda9e6e1/800f05bf-23f7-4c9d-8c1d-b2503592875f,if > =none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,format=raw,serial=2ecfcf18-ae84- > 4e73-922f-28b9cda9e6e1,cache=none,werror=stop,rerror=stop,aio=threads > -device virtio-blk-pci,scsi=off,bus=pci.0,addr=0x6,drive=drive-virti > o-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1 -chardev > socket,id=charchannel0,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/channels/2 > 1872e4b-7699-4502-b1ef-2c058eff1c3c.com.redhat.rhevm.vdsm,server,nowait > -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial0.0,nr=1,chardev=charchannel > 0,id=channel0,name=com.redhat.rhevm.vdsm -chardev > socket,id=charchannel1,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/channels/2 > 1872e4b-7699-4502-b1ef-2c058eff1c3c.org.qemu.guest_agent.0,server,nowait > -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial0.0,nr=2,chardev=charchannel > 1,id=channel1,name=org.qemu.guest_agent.0 -device > usb-tablet,id=input0 -vnc 192.168.0.189:0,password -k pt-br -device > VGA,id=video0,vgamem_mb=16,bus=pci.0,addr=0x2 -device > virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x5 -msg timestamp=on > 2016-09-01T12:50:28.307173Z qemu-kvm: warning: CPU(s) not present in > any NUMA nodes: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > 2016-09-01T12:50:28.307371Z qemu-kvm: warning: All CPU(s) up to > maxcpus should be described in NUMA config > qemu: terminating on signal 15 from pid 1 > 2016-09-01 19:13:47.899+0000: shutting down > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > 2016-09-02 11:05 GMT-03:00 Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com>: > >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Gabriel Ozaki < >> gabriel.ozaki@kemi.com.br> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> i am trying Ovirt 4.0 and i am getting some strange results when >>> comparing with Xenserver >>> >>> **The host machine* >>> Intel Core i5-4440 3.10GHz running at 3093 MHz >>> 8 Gb of RAM (1x8) >>> 500 Gb of Disk (seagate st500dm002 7200rpm) >>> CentOS 7 (netinstall for the most updated and stable packages) >>> >>> >>> >>> **How i am testing:* >>> I choose two benchmark tools, sysbench(epel-repo on centos) and >>> novabench(for windows guest, https://novabench.com ), then i make >>> a clean install of xenserver and create two guests(CentOS and Windows 7 SP1) >>> >>> >>> **The Guest specs* >>> 2 cores >>> 4 Gb of RAM >>> 60 Gb of disk (using virtIO in a NFS storage) >>> >> >> The nfs server is in the host? >> >> >>> Important note: only the testing guest are up on benchmark and i >>> have installed the drivers in guest >>> >>> >>> **The Sysbench disk test(creates 10Gb of data and do the bench):* >>> # sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=10G prepare >>> # sysbench --test=fileio --file-total-size=10G >>> --file-test-mode=rndrw --init-rng=on --max-time=300 --max-requests=0 run >>> >>> Host result: 2.9843Mb/sec >>> Ovirt result: 1.1561Mb/sec >>> Xenserver result: 2.9006Mb/sec >>> >> >> - Is this 2.9GiB/s or 2.9 MiB/s? >> - Are you testing using NFS in all versions? >> - What is the disk format? >> - How do you test io on the host? >> - What kind of nic is used? (1G, 10G?) >> >> >>> >>> **The novabench test:* >>> Ovirt result: 79Mb/s >>> Xenserver result: 101Mb/s >>> >> >> We need much more details to understand what do you test here. >> >> - For ovirt, can you share the vm command line, available in >> /var/log/libvirt/qemu/vmname.log? >> - For Xenserver - detailed description of the vm and the storage >> configuration? >> >> Nir >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >
