Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] vhost: add vhost_blk driver | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Tue, 6 Nov 2018 10:45:08 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/11/5 上午11:23, Vitaly Mayatskih wrote: > On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:00 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> # fio num-jobs >>> # A: bare metal over block >>> # B: bare metal over file >>> # C: virtio-blk over block >>> # D: virtio-blk over file >>> # E: vhost-blk bio over block >>> # F: vhost-blk kiocb over block >>> # G: vhost-blk kiocb over file >>> # >>> # A B C D E F G >>> 16 1480k 1506k 101k 102k 1346k 1202k 566k >> Hi: >> >> Thanks for the patches. >> >> This is not the first attempt for having vhost-blk: >> >> - Badari's version: https://lwn.net/Articles/379864/ >> >> - Asias' version: https://lwn.net/Articles/519880/ >> >> It's better to describe the differences (kiocb vs bio? performance?). >> E.g if my memory is correct, Asias said it doesn't give much improvement >> compared with userspace qemu. >> >> And what's more important, I believe we tend to use virtio-scsi nowdays. >> So what's the advantages of vhost-blk over vhost-scsi? > Hi, > > Yes, I saw both. Frankly, my implementation is not that different, > because the whole thing has only twice more LOC that vhost/test.c. > > I posted my numbers (see in quoted text above the 16 queues case), > IOPS goes from ~100k to 1.2M and almost reaches the physical > limitation of the backend. > > submit_bio() is a bit faster, but can't be used for disk images placed > on a file system. I have that submit_bio implementation too. > > Storage industry is shifting away from SCSI, which has a scaling > problem.
Know little about storage. For scaling, do you mean SCSI protocol itself? If not, it's probably not a real issue for virtio-scsi itself.
> I can compare vhost-scsi vs vhost-blk if you are curious.
It would be very helpful to see the performance comparison.
Thanks
> Thanks!
| |