bhyve win-guest benchmark comparing

[Michael Reifenberger]

Hi,
r358848 has been MFC'd to stable/12


Zitat von Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd at omnilan.de>:

> Am 22.10.2018 um 13:26 schrieb Harry Schmalzbauer:
> …
>>
>> Test-Runs:
>> Each hypervisor had only the one bench-guest running, no other  
>> tasks/guests were running besides system's native standard processes.
>> Since the time between powering up the guest and finishing logon  
>> differed notably (~5s vs. ~20s) from one host to the other, I did a  
>> quick synthetic IO-Test beforehand.
>> I'm using IOmeter since heise.de published a great test pattern  
>> called IOmix – about 18 years ago I guess.  This access pattern has  
>> always perfectly reflected the system performance for human  
>> computer usage with non-caculation-centric applications, and still  
>> is my favourite, despite throughput and latency changed by some  
>> orders of manitudes during the last decade (and I had defined  
>> something for "fio" which mimics IOmix and shows reasonable  
>> relational results; but I'm still prefering IOmeter for homogenous  
>> IO benchmarking).
>>
>> The results is about factor 7 :-(
>> ~3800iops&69MB/s (CPU-guest-usage 42%IOmeter+12%irq)
>>                 vs.
>> ~29000iops&530MB/s (CPU-guest-usage 11%IOmeter+19%irq)
>>
>>
>>     [with debug kernel and debug-malloc, numbers are 3000iops&56MB/s,
>>      virtio-blk instead of ahci,hd: results in 5660iops&104MB/s  
>> with non-debug kernel
>>      – much better, but even higher CPU load and still factor 4 slower]
>>
>> What I don't understand is, why the IOmeter process differs that  
>> much in CPU utilization!?!  It's the same binary on the same OS  
>> (guest) with the same OS-driver and the same underlying hardware –  
>> "just" the AHCI emulation and the vmm differ...
>
> I repeated this test with a slightly different device backend  
> (Samsung 850pro SSD on mps(4) instead of mfid(4)).
> After applying r358848 to stable/12, the numbers changed  
> dramatically.0 on the same haswell based Xeon E3 platform.
>
> With the single SSD, the IOmeter numbers for ESXi as host drop
> from ~29000iops&530MB/s to ~11000/205MB/s.
>     But the numbers for bhyve as host
> raise from ~3800iops&69MB/s to ~8800/160MB/s at the same time!!!
>
> So there's still a penalty of ~20% for ahci-bhyve vs. ahci-esx, but  
> this is a enourmous improvement.
> Please don't skip the MFC for r358848!
>
> Thanks a lot for all the work!
>
> -harry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-virtualization at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to  
> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



Gruß
---
Michael Reifenberger