2011/9/14 Kevin Wolf <[email protected]>: ... omissis... > >>>>>> To optimize REF+ I mark a range as allocated and use this range to >>>>>> get new ones (avoiding writing refcount to disk). When a flush is >>>>>> requested or in some situations (like snapshot) this cache is disabled >>>>>> and flushed (written as REF-). >>>>>> I do not consider this patch ready, it works and pass all io-tests >>>>>> but for instance I would avoid allocating new clusters for refcount >>>>>> during preallocation. >>>>> >>>>> The only question here is if improving cache=writethrough cluster >>>>> allocation performance is worth the additional complexity in the already >>>>> complex refcounting code. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I didn't see this optimization as a second level cache, but yes, for >>>> REF- is a second cache. >>>> >>>>> The alternative that was discussed before is the dirty bit approach that >>>>> is used in QED and would allow us to use writeback for all refcount >>>>> blocks, regardless of REF- or REF+. It would be an easier approach >>>>> requiring less code changes, but it comes with the cost of requiring an >>>>> fsck after a qemu crash. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was thinking about changing the header magic first time we change >>>> refcount in order to mark image as dirty so newer Qemu recognize the >>>> flag while former one does not recognize image. Obviously reverting >>>> magic on image close. >>> >>> We've discussed this idea before and I think it wasn't considered a >>> great idea to automagically change the header in an incompatible way. >>> But we can always say that for improved performance you need to upgrade >>> your image to qcow2 v3. >>> >> >> I don't understand why there is not a wiki page for detailed qcow3 >> changes. I saw your post on May. I follow this ML since August so I >> think I missed a lot of discussion on qcow improves. > > Unfortunately there have been almost no comments, so you can consider > RFC v2 as the current proposal. >
:( >>>>>> End speed up is quite visible allocating clusters (more then 20%). >>>>> >>>>> What benchmark do you use for testing this? >>>>> >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>> >>>> Currently I'm using bonnie++ but I noted similar improves with iozone. >>>> The test script format an image then launch a Linux machine which run >>>> a script and save result to a file. >>>> The test image is seems by this virtual machine as a separate disk. >>>> The file on hist reside in a separate LV. >>>> I got quite consistent results (of course not working on the machine >>>> while testing, is not actually dedicated to this job). >>>> >>>> Actually I'm running the test (added a test working in a snapshot image). >>> >>> Okay. Let me guess the remaining variables: The image is on an ext4 host >>> filesystem, you use cache=writethrough and virtio-blk. You don't use >>> backing files, compression and encryption. For your tests with internal >>> snapshots you have exactly one internal snapshot that is taken >>> immediately before the benchmark. Oh, and not to forget, KVM is enabled. >>> >>> Are these assumptions correct? >>> >> >> change ext4 and put xfs and assumptions are ok. Yes I use internal >> snapshots (REF- are useful only in this case). To produce "qcow2s" I >> use these commands >> >> $QEMU_IMG create -f qcow2 -o preallocation=metadata $FILE 15g >> $QEMU_IMG snapshot -c test $FILE > > Ah, using preallocation for this is a nice trick. :-) > > Anyway, thanks, I think I understand now what you're measuring. > Yes, and real performance are even worst cause preallocating only metadata you get many less physical read from disk. >> I run again tests (yesterdays test was not that consistence, today I >> stopped all unneeded services and avoid the X session tunneled by >> ssh). >> >> without patched >> run raw qcow2 qcow2s >> 1 22758 4206 1054 >> 2 28401 21745 17997 >> >> with patches (ref-,ref+) >> run raw qcow2 qcow2s >> 1 22563 4965 4382 >> 2 23823 21043 20904 >> >> beside I still don't understand difference in second runs for raw >> (about 20%!!!) this confirms the huge improves with snapshot. > > Measuring with cache=writethrough means that you use the host page > cache, so I think that could be where you get the difference for raw. > Numbers should be more consistent for cache=none, but that's not what we > want to test... > > Did you also test how each patch performs if applied on its own, without > the other one? It would be interesting to see how much REF- optimisation > contributes and how much REF+. > > Kevin > Here you are only ref- run raw qcow2 qcow2s 1 22579 4072 4053 2 30322 19667 16830 so mostly REF- for snapshot. Frediano
