On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:49:04PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:18 PM Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > - virtiofs cache=none mode is faster than cache=auto mode for this > > workload. > > Not sure why. One cause could be that readahead is not perfect at > detecting the random pattern. Could we compare total I/O on the > server vs. total I/O by fio?
Ran tests with auto_inval_data disabled and compared with other results. vtfs-auto-ex-randrw randrw-psync 27.8mb/9547kb 7136/2386 vtfs-auto-sh-randrw randrw-psync 43.3mb/14.4mb 10.8k/3709 vtfs-auto-sh-noinval randrw-psync 50.5mb/16.9mb 12.6k/4330 vtfs-none-sh-randrw randrw-psync 54.1mb/18.1mb 13.5k/4649 With auto_inval_data disabled, this time I saw around 20% performance jump in READ and is now much closer to cache=none performance. Thanks Vivek
