I’m fine with variations as long as they’re clearly marked so people can compare, like what @51lieal did with SSD-4k.
In fact, it’s nice to see this topic slowly morph into a thread on how to min-max qube startup times. I think as Qubes evolves, this metric will become increasingly important, since the logical conclusion of its compartmentalization-via-VM approach to security is to have a fresh VM for every little task–so how quickly a computer can spin up a new instance will be key. Even without this extreme, the usability of Qubes (as your daily driver at least) is strongly connected to how fast your computer can spin up VMs.
So a big thank you to all who have contributed so far–please keep at it! I’d contribute if I had anything to give, but this isn’t my field
I got interesting results running R4.2 Alpha on BTRFS and 4kn drive. The installer of R4.2 has new enough cryptsetup that can automatically select appropriate sector size. So I just need to switch my NVMe drive to 4kn mode ( using another LBA format sector size ).
So, booting debian-11-minimal without memory balancing, with its memory set to 400MB, takes ~2.5s. This is better than any previous results with different NVMe drives on my machine. Specifically, it’s ~0.6s faster than another BTRFS R4.2, which is installed on an identical drive, but without 4kn.
Now, the time between me clicking on the application launcher and chromium’s window showing up, is less than 5 seconds. And my laptop’s specs are far from “powerful”!
So for anyone interested in testing R4.2 and BTRFS, enabling 4kn mode perhaps will speed up your VMs booting!
There will be BTRFS optimization landing in kernel 6.3, and I’m hoping for another leap in performance.
Thanks for your guide! I’d love to try 4kn+lvm, but I just restored a ton of VMs ( to fully transit from 4.1 to 4.2, to enjoy the lightning speed ), so maybe I’ll try 4kn+lvm when I get a spare nvme drive.
Anyway, my previous install was lvm without 4kn, and VM boot time is 1.5 seconds longer than my install of btrfs without 4kn. So I doubt whether 4kn+lvm will have performance gains conpared to 4kn+brtfs.
I’ll build 4kn templates to test if they will boot even faster. I read somewhere that btrfs treats the underlying fs’s sector size differently from lvm does. Given that 4kn templates do help in booting faster on lvm ( from your posts ) , it’s really worth investigating whether 4kn templates will boot faster than legacy templates, on brtfs.
I did some benchmarks on my main laptop before I converted it from tLVM to Btrfs-on-4k-luks. They are crude in that the only startup time measured is for Debian VM start + Firefox. However, I did also record VM shutdown times, and my experience is these really affect system performance when you are busily working on your system… the tLVM snapshot operations at shutdown hammer the dom0 storage layer often for 7+ seconds for medium sized volumes.
My plan is to re-do the benchmarks before long, so the restored VM volumes are still similar enough to make a fair comparison.
@tasket Great to see you again! Sorry for (temporarily) hijacking the thread, but I’m a long-time user of the tools you’ve written for Qubes–e.g. halt-vm-by-window, system-stats-xen, and more importantly, vm-boot-protect. I recommend the various scripts in this Github repo to just about anyone looking to have a more fluid Qubes experience–especially halt-vm-by-window.
Thank you very much for making tools that I use tens–maybe hundreds of times a day.
Anyways, the reason I’m reaching out is because I’ve noticed that since R4.1, vm-boot-protect tends to fail when booting up. I know I’m not supposed to use it with disposables, but I have since R4.0 without issue… until R4.1. Now, there’s a high probability that a terminal window appears with a warning that vm-boot-protect was triggered and that the bad private files are in /mnt/xdvb (not accurate; recalling from memory).
I’d hugely appreciate it if you updated your tools for R4.1 (or even R4.2).
With the work you and others are doing, a sub-1-second boot seems to be a fast-approaching reality. Hopefully with some template-side-tweaks (or even a native specialized template like debian-15-quick) this should be attainable within a few years.
Maybe I should start a thread asking people for ideas about what could be done with this–i.e. how to leverage the almost-negligible cost of booting (and shutting down) a VM to make Qubes more secure and more usable.
@fiftyfourthparallel Hi FFP! Feel free to open an issue when something like this happens. FWIW, when I upgraded to 4.1, I just kept using the same tools that are already there. Qubes-VM-hardening did get an update to the dom0 instructions.
The idea of preloaded-dispVMs are nice, but both threads seem to indicate that the idea isn’t actively being worked on.
Either way, the thread I’m proposing is another one of my idea threads where people just throw things out there and hopefully something inspires someone. Kind of like my “Now you’re thinking with Qubes” thread. Might as well just go ahead and post it instead of navel-gazing.
I measured 3+ seconds savings in the boot time on gen8 i7 cpu using the default 4G maxmem qube. slower CPUs will benefit more than faster ones.
The “don’t include in memory balancing” seems to be related to this:
[ 2.327810] xen:balloon: Waiting for initial ballooning down having finished.
[ 3.058150] xen:balloon: Initial ballooning down finished.
so you basically don’t load this balloon driver and get the savings from its init. Somebody could look into what the init does and actually optimize it I guess. Again slower CPUs benefit more here. but other factors seem to have big impact too. free xen ram?
[ 1.309210] xen:balloon: Waiting for initial ballooning down having finished.
[ 7.153167] xen:balloon: Initial ballooning down finished.
There are preset kernelopts for sys-gui and I set them for all qubes (zswap.enabled=0, for example while using zram-tools), but it’s not a problem to actually add your option to existing ones. Disabling balooning indeed dramatically increases overall performance., including boot time.
My best debian-11-minimal boot time so far is 4.05s
Of course. Manually setting each qube’s RAM is a part of Qubes’ setting routine. My services run with 300-800MB, while browser qubes runs on 2048MB. Nothing more than that except Win11 qube with 2118MB.
Sys-gui-gpu runs with 1000MB.
well, manually setting RAM is quite limiting in many cases. Sharing memory in general is good as that makes things faster.
Now of course every VM running their own kernel they cannot share crucial stuff like caches, so it’s quite a bit of waste, though with fast NVMe may be the cache is not all that much needed and could be dialed down substantially inside the VMs (I just looked into a random sampling of my VMs and I have substantial pagecaches there, sometimes in gigabytes, which probably means Xen balloon driver assumes the VM really needs a lot more memory than it actually does?), despite the “free ram is wasted ram” adage, it might not apply as well in case of qubes situation and keeping healthy amount of Xen RAM free comes a long way to speed up VMs startup. I’ll probably have to experiment some in this area, and thisis is probably getting somewhat offtopic for this particular thread.
What Tasket’s describing matches what I experience whenever I shut down a large VM (>100GB). The time for the shutdown operation to end is multiples longer than VMs with negligble storage (e.g. sys-net). However I think this can be sidestepped by compartmentalizing VMs or treating larger VMs as exceptions.
@kindagreen I don’t think your theses and experiments are off-topic at all (see this post)–I eagerly await your experiment results!
Also, this thread has reached 100 posts after 2.5 years–That’s a staggering 40 posts per year! Hopefully, with a combination of hardware advances, optimizations, and ingenuity, we can get boot times down to 1 second within the next hundred posts, and show the moderators what a good return on moderating investment looks like.
I would say blkdiscard has little or nothing to do with it.
Because Wyng Backup also does snapshot management, I was faced with snapshot deletion causing long delays during the backup process. Or, at least they are long compared to the nearly instant decision Wyng makes when there are no changes in a volume to backup… it can’t decide without the snapshot, but deleting the comparison snap might take >10 seconds.
I determined that the deletion process was not critical to data integrity (its just cleanup) so I just spawned ‘lvremove’ background processes using ‘ionice’ without checking them. Wyng works much faster that way, although the rename (also slow) part of snapshot rotation can’t use a similar workaround.
OTOH, backups run faster on Btrfs even with that LVM-specific optimization, because deleting and renaming image files is so much faster than with thin LVs.
As for Qubes VM start/stop, perhaps there are snapshot rotation steps that can be left in the background and considered non-critical. For example, if VM startup always checks for the situation where a volume has been left in its active unsettled state (which it already does), and that unsettled volume name has the newest timestamp, then you can recover that situation easily with zero risk. So there could be a benefit to treating VM shutdown rotations as an unimportant background process (also using ‘ionice’).