performance gap between virtio-fs and virtio-blk in --cache=always mode
Hi team, I've done some tests to virtio-fs and virtio-blk. The conditions are:
- same buffered read workload.(it's actually just one line nodejs code:
require(koa)
) - --cache=always for virtiofs
- 2cpu 512M guest box of cloud-hypervisor
The result is virtio-blk costs only half time to finish the job than virtio-fs, why is that in terms of they are both just memory access?(I do one extra test first to load the workload to memory)
Edited by Hao Xu