Is the BHyVe guest as suitable for high-performance disk IO as the host?
tinkr at openmailbox.org
Sun May 10 13:17:02 UTC 2015
Thank you very much for your response -
I guess this should deliver the full capacity for basically any IO
system around, be it a fast SSD or ramdisk. (Since the guest may not
need to flush data immediately to the host, I guess read performance is
the more sensitive point.)
Which disk emulation mode is best for a BSD guest, "virtio-blk" or
In general, should any other consideration be made for performance
(using the "direct" or "nocache" BHyVe configuration options, particular
consideration for proper sector alignment when using a disk image stored
on the host's SSD-based ZFS, mounting the host ZFS filesystem with
On 2015-05-10 04:03, Neel Natu wrote:
> Hi Tinker,
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Tinker <tinkr at openmailbox.org> wrote:
>> For an environment with very heavy parallell IO, should the
>> performance be
>> just as good in a BHyVe guest as in the FreeBSD host environment?
>> What I thought of is that I guess within the host environment, the
>> subsystem should have all kinds of optimizations like an internal work
>> that pushes lots of work alinearly/asynchronously to the disk
>> controller and
>> this way allows it, in turn, to give all its performance.
>> Does the virtualized disk interface carry over all that goodness to
> bhyve creates 8 worker threads for each virtual disk controller (both
> ahci and virtio-blk).
> All guest I/O is handled asynchronously by these worker threads which
> provide parallelism.
>> (https://wiki.freebsd.org/bhyve seems to say yes, presuming you
>> BHyVe to run the virtual disk in AHCI mode?)
> The wiki is out of date.
> Since r280037 the virtio-blk emulation also gets the benefits of using
> the block_if worker threads.
>> freebsd-virtualization at freebsd.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-virtualization