On 05/23/2010 01:10 AM, Jim Paris wrote:
Antoine Martin wrote:
On 02/27/2010 12:38 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
1 0 0 98 0 1| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 3011
1 1 0 98 0 0| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 2911
> From that point onw
Antoine Martin wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 12:38 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
> >>> 1 0 0 98 0 1| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 3011
> >>> 1 1 0 98 0 0| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 2911
> >>>From that point onwards, nothing will happen.
> >>>The host has disk IO
On 02/27/2010 12:38 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
1 0 0 98 0 1| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 3011
1 1 0 98 0 0| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 2911
From that point onwards, nothing will happen.
The host has disk IO to spare... So what is it waiting for??
M
1 0 0 98 0 1| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 3011
1 1 0 98 0 0| 0 0 | 66B 354B| 0 0 | 2911
From that point onwards, nothing will happen.
The host has disk IO to spare... So what is it waiting for??
Moved to an AMD64 host. No effect.
Disabled sw
On 01/23/2010 02:15 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
On 01/23/2010 01:28 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
On 01/22/2010 02:57 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Antoine Martin wrote:
I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
custom 2.6.32.x
All of them hang around the same point (~1GB writt
On 01/23/2010 02:15 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
On 01/23/2010 01:28 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
On 01/22/2010 02:57 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Antoine Martin wrote:
I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
custom 2.6.32.x
All of them hang around the same point (~1GB writt
On 01/23/2010 01:28 AM, Antoine Martin wrote:
On 01/22/2010 02:57 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Antoine Martin wrote:
I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
custom 2.6.32.x
All of them hang around the same point (~1GB written) when I do
heavy IO
write inside the guest
On 01/22/2010 02:57 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Antoine Martin wrote:
I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
custom 2.6.32.x
All of them hang around the same point (~1GB written) when I do heavy IO
write inside the guest.
[]
Host is running: 2.6.31.4
QE
Antoine Martin wrote:
> I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
> custom 2.6.32.x
> All of them hang around the same point (~1GB written) when I do heavy IO
> write inside the guest.
[]
> Host is running: 2.6.31.4
> QEMU PC emulator version 0.10.50 (qemu-kvm-devel-88)
Pl
No sorry, I haven't any performance data with noop. I even don't
have had a crash. BUT I've experienced serve I/O degradation
with noop. Once I've written a big chunk of data (e.g. a simple
rsync -av /usr /opt) with noop it works for a while and
after a few seconds I saw heavy writes which made the
On Thursday 21 January 2010 21:08:38 RW wrote:
> Some months ago I also thought elevator=noop should be a good idea.
> But it isn't. It works good as long as you only do short IO requests.
> Try using deadline in host and guest.
>
> Robert
@Robert: I've been using noop on all of my KVMs and didn'
Some months ago I also thought elevator=noop should be a good idea.
But it isn't. It works good as long as you only do short IO requests.
Try using deadline in host and guest.
Robert
On 01/21/10 18:26, Antoine Martin wrote:
> I've tried various guests, including most recent Fedora12 kernels,
> c
12 matches
Mail list logo
