Re: [Libguestfs] Virt-v2v performance benchmarking part 3

On 01/09/22 19:51, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Part 1: > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2022-January/msg00055.html > Part 2: > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2022-January/msg00057.html > > This is part 3 of my performance analysis of virt-v2v over the last > year. In this email I cover conversion from VMware to a local disk > using VDDK. This is a more realistic test than doing local disk to > local disk conversions. > > As you can see from the new chart in the attached file [LibreOffice > Calc format] modular virt-v2v has got a little faster over all, with > conversion taking slightly longer and copying being slightly faster. > > If you expand the hidden columns (between columns F & M) you will also > see clearly the new flushing behaviour of nbdcopy, where it always > flushes the output to disk, versus "qemu-img convert" which used the > page cache (notice the Sync times in column L). This can make old > virt-v2v appear to be much faster, but the appearance is not real. So this confirms that there is no performance regression in the "VMware to a local disk using VDDK" conversion case -- this is the result we've been looking for, right?