Re: bad qemu savevm to /dev/null performance (600 MiB/s max) (Was: Re: starting to look at qemu savevm performance, a first regression detected)

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:43:48AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Claudio Fontana (cfontana@suse.de) wrote:
> > On 3/7/22 1:28 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > * Claudio Fontana (cfontana@suse.de) wrote:
> > >> On 3/7/22 1:20 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 01:09:55PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > >>>> Got it, this explains it, sorry for the noise on this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'll continue to investigate the general issue of low throughput with 
> > >>>> virsh save / qemu savevm .
> > >>>
> > >>> BTW, consider measuring with the --bypass-cache flag to virsh save.
> > >>> This causes libvirt to use a I/O helper that uses O_DIRECT when
> > >>> saving the image. This should give more predictable results by
> > >>> avoiding the influence of host I/O cache which can be in a differnt
> > >>> state of usage each time you measure.  It was also intended that
> > >>> by avoiding hitting cache, saving the memory image of a large VM
> > >>> will not push other useful stuff out of host I/O  cache which can
> > >>> negatively impact other running VMs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also it is possible to configure compression on the libvirt side
> > >>> which may be useful if you have spare CPU cycles, but your storage
> > >>> is slow. See 'save_image_format' in the /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf
> > >>>
> > >>> With regards,
> > >>> Daniel
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Daniel, thanks for these good info,
> > >>
> > >> regarding slow storage, for these tests I am saving to /dev/null to 
> > >> avoid having to take storage into account
> > >> (and still getting low bandwidth unfortunately) so I guess compression 
> > >> is out of the question.
> > > 
> > > What type of speeds do you get if you try a migrate to a netcat socket?
> > 
> > much faster apparently, 30 sec savevm vs 7 seconds for migration to a 
> > netcat socket sent to /dev/null.
> > 
> > nc -l -U /tmp/savevm.socket
> > 
> > virsh suspend centos7
> > Domain centos7 suspended
> > 
> > virsh qemu-monitor-command --cmd '{ "execute": "migrate", "arguments": { 
> > "uri": "unix:///tmp/savevm.socket" } }' centos7
> > 
> > virt97:/mnt # virsh qemu-monitor-command --cmd '{ "execute": 
> > "query-migrate" }' centos7
> > {"return":{"blocked":false,"status":"completed","setup-time":118,"downtime":257,"total-time":7524,"ram":{"total":32213049344,"postcopy-requests":0,"dirty-sync-count":3,"multifd-bytes":0,"pages-per-second":1057530,"page-size":4096,"remaining":0,"mbps":24215.572437483122,"transferred":22417172290,"duplicate":2407520,"dirty-pages-rate":0,"skipped":0,"normal-bytes":22351847424,"normal":5456994}},"id":"libvirt-438"}
> > 
> > virt97:/mnt # virsh qemu-monitor-command --cmd '{ "execute": 
> > "query-migrate-parameters" }' centos7
> > {"return":{"cpu-throttle-tailslow":false,"xbzrle-cache-size":67108864,"cpu-throttle-initial":20,"announce-max":550,"decompress-threads":2,"compress-threads":8,"compress-level":0,"multifd-channels":8,"multifd-zstd-level":1,"announce-initial":50,"block-incremental":false,"compress-wait-thread":true,"downtime-limit":300,"tls-authz":"","multifd-compression":"none","announce-rounds":5,"announce-step":100,"tls-creds":"","multifd-zlib-level":1,"max-cpu-throttle":99,"max-postcopy-bandwidth":0,"tls-hostname":"","throttle-trigger-threshold":50,"max-bandwidth":9223372036853727232,"x-checkpoint-delay":20000,"cpu-throttle-increment":10},"id":"libvirt-439"}
> > 
> > 
> > I did also a run with multifd-channels:1 instead of 8, if it matters:
> 
> I suspect you haven't actually got multifd enabled ( check
> query-migrate-capabilities ?).
> > 
> > virt97:/mnt # virsh qemu-monitor-command --cmd '{ "execute": 
> > "query-migrate" }' centos7
> > {"return":{"blocked":false,"status":"completed","setup-time":119,"downtime":260,"total-time":8601,"ram":{"total":32213049344,"postcopy-requests":0,"dirty-sync-count":3,"multifd-bytes":0,"pages-per-second":908820,"page-size":4096,"remaining":0,"mbps":21141.861157274227,"transferred":22415264188,"duplicate":2407986,"dirty-pages-rate":0,"skipped":0,"normal-bytes":22349938688,"normal":5456528}},"id":"libvirt-453"}
> > 
> > virt97:/mnt # virsh qemu-monitor-command --cmd '{ "execute": 
> > "query-migrate-parameters" }' centos7
> > {"return":{"cpu-throttle-tailslow":false,"xbzrle-cache-size":67108864,"cpu-throttle-initial":20,"announce-max":550,"decompress-threads":2,"compress-threads":8,"compress-level":0,"multifd-channels":1,"multifd-zstd-level":1,"announce-initial":50,"block-incremental":false,"compress-wait-thread":true,"downtime-limit":300,"tls-authz":"","multifd-compression":"none","announce-rounds":5,"announce-step":100,"tls-creds":"","multifd-zlib-level":1,"max-cpu-throttle":99,"max-postcopy-bandwidth":0,"tls-hostname":"","throttle-trigger-threshold":50,"max-bandwidth":9223372036853727232,"x-checkpoint-delay":20000,"cpu-throttle-increment":10},"id":"libvirt-454"}
> > 
> > 
> > Still we are in the 20 Gbps range, or around 2560 MiB/s, way faster than 
> > savevm which does around 600 MiB/s when the wind is in its favor..
> 
> Yeh that's what I'd hope for off a decent CPU; hmm there's not that much
> savevm specific is there?

BTW, quick clarification here.

IIUC, Claudio says the test is 'virsh save $VMNAME /some/file'. This
is *not* running 'savevm' at the QEMU level. So it is a bit misleading
refering to it as savevm in the thread here.

'virsh save' is simply wired up to the normal QEMU 'migrate' commands,
with libvirt giving QEMU a pre-opened FD, which libvirt processes the
other end of to write out to disk.

IOW, the performance delta is possibly on libvirt's side rather
than QEMU's.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|