[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libguestfs] FYI: perf commands I'm using to benchmark nbdcopy



On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 03:15:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:49:50PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:03 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones redhat com> wrote:
> > > In my testing, nbdcopy is a clear 4x faster than qemu-img convert, with
> > > 4 also happening to be the default number of connections/threads.
> > > Why use nbdcopy --connections=1?  That completely disables threads in
> > > nbdcopy.
> > 
> > Because qemu-nbd does not report multicon when writing, so practically
> > you get one nbd handle for writing.
> 
> Let's see if we can fix that.  Crippling nbdcopy because of a missing
> feature in qemu-nbd isn't right.  I wonder what Eric's reasoning for
> multi-conn not being safe is.

multi-conn implies that connection A writes, connection B flushes, and
connection C is then guaranteed to read what connection A wrote.
Furthermore, if client A and B plan on doing overlapping writes, the
presence of multi-conn means that whoever flushes last is guaranteed
to have that last write stick.  Without multiconn, even if A writes, B
writes, B flushes, then A flushes, you can end up with A's data
(rather than B's) as the final contents on disk, because the separate
connections are allowed to have separate caching regions where the
order of flushes determines which cache (with potentially stale data)
gets flushed when.  And note that the effect of overlapping writes may
happen even when your client requests are not overlapping: if client A
and B both write distinct 512 byte regions within a larger 4k page,
the server performing RMW caching of that page will behave as though
there are overlapping writes.

During nbdcopy or qemu-img convert, we aren't reading what we just
wrote and can easily arrange to avoid overlapping writes, so we don't
care about the bulk of the semantics of multi-conn (other than it is a
nice hint of a server that accepts multiple clients).  So at the end
of the day, it boils down to:

If the server advertised multi-conn: connect multiple clients, then
when all of them are done writing, only ONE client has to flush, and
the flush will be valid for what all of the clients wrote.

If the server did not advertise multi-conn, but still allows multiple
clients: connect those clients, write to distinct areas (avoid
overlapping writes, and hopefully your writes are sized large enough
that you are also avoiding overlapping cache granularities); then when
all clients are finished writing, ALL of them must call flush
(ideally, only the first flush takes any real time, and the server can
optimize the later flushes as having nothing further to flush - but we
can't guarantee that).

New enough nbdkit also has the multi-conn filter where you can play
around with different multi-conn policies :)

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]