From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <m.heiserer@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4985702A6 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D227D9776 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1AFA4976B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4BDAF42DD2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <fb69c72f-e83c-b42e-225b-32460d4b1284@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:59:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220527114810.510501-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <20220527114810.510501-3-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <acf8204b-881c-7a63-49b9-a9b7321d9b6c@proxmox.com> From: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <acf8204b-881c-7a63-49b9-a9b7321d9b6c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.674 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.732 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 manager] HDEdit: check iothread by default and move it from advanced section X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:59:57 -0000 On 10.06.2022 11:20, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 27.05.22 um 13:48 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: >> Existing disks are not changed by this. >> Especially in benchmarks, iothreads significantly improve IO performance. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com> > > Reviewed-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > >> --- >> >> Changes from v3: >> * remove automatically switching to/from SCSI single when iothread is (un)checked >> * iothread will be initially set on >> * changing the controller to something other than SCSI single and then back to >> SCSI single will enable iothread for all SCSI disks. > > I like this version much more. We could still add validation/warning to > the checkbox, but IMHO not a big deal with the new default and improved > warning upon VM start. Just wondering if we should enable iothread by > default for virtio disks too, or is the performance improvement not as > relevant there? Okay great, then I won't change the UI in v5. Just did a very quick test and on my machine it seems to make read benchmarks faster, but write is slightly slower. Will enable it in v5. fio --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=read --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --name seq_read --filename=/dev/vdb With iothread: read: IOPS=27.1k, BW=106MiB/s write: IOPS=707, BW=2831KiB/s Without iothread: read: IOPS=13.4k, BW=52.5MiB/s write: IOPS=787, BW=3150KiB/s