Thank you everyone, you are right, I have forgot xen network infrastructure - I have finally installed panick and it is an excellent tool. Moreover, I have compared SMB and FTP performance with similar Windows hosts and concluded that it is not better at all. So, everything is ok, maybe I panicked a bit because I've found a bug with tg3 driver I use and some older releases of xen (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=124308) but I am happy now :) ... Zoran.
2009/10/13 Pasi Kärkkäinen <[email protected]> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16:33AM -0700, Collins, Kevin [BEELINE] wrote: > > I've seen similar results of only "Link detected" under Xen. If you > use > > "peth0" instead of "eth0" (or whichever device), it should work fine. > I > > don't remember the details of what the difference is, but its related > to > > Xen networking. > > > > The default 'network-bridge' script in Xen does some magic: it renames > the real physical eth0 nic to peth0, and creates a virtual device called > eth0, and then both physical peth0 and the virtual eth0 are bridged to > xenbr0 bridge. > > Run 'brctl show' and check it out. > > This way you can share the physical NIC with other guests, AND you get a > dedicated interface for dom0, so you can filter/firewall only the > traffic destinated to dom0, leaving the traffic of other guests without > firewalling. > > -- Pasi > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zoran Popovic > > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:26 AM > > To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list > > Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] expected network throughput on RHEL Dom0 / > PV > > DomU > > > > > > > > Ok, I have finally found time and tested same machine under non-xen > kernel > > - it behaves the same. I have noticed only that ethtool works fine on > the > > non-xen kernel, while on xenified kernel it doesn't give much (only > Link > > detected: yes). I was using FTP (30MB/s) and SMBCLIENT (18MB/s) as a > test, > > but that is maybe not a good way to do it. My next question would be: > how > > to test network load in general ? Any hint is welcome, > > Zoran. > > > > 2009/9/7 Zavodsky, Daniel (GE Capital) <[1][email protected]> > > > > Hello, > > > > From my experience, network is maybe 5-15% slower on a PV DomU > than on > > physical hardware on a gigabit ethernet interface (fully loaded). High > > network traffic in DomU eats CPU in Dom0, therefore especially for > smaller > > message sizes (packets) the throughput is CPU-limited. There must be > > something terribly wrong if you get transfer speed of only several > kB/s. I > > have not tried RHEL 5.4 yet, but up to 5.3 it had worked flawlessly. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From: [2][email protected] > > [mailto:[3][email protected]] On Behalf Of Zoran Popovic > > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:25 PM > > To: [4][email protected]; > > [5][email protected]; Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 > > (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list > > Subject: [rhelv5-list] expected network throughput on RHEL Dom0 / PV > DomU > > > > I use Red Hat 5.3 Dom0 (kernel 2.6.18-128.4.1.el5xen, xen 3.1, using > > default xenbridge0 configuration) and Red Hat 5.4 PV DomU (kernel > > 2.6.18-164.el5xen, xennet module for eth0), on a HP BL870c (Itanium > blade) > > with gigabit network adapter (intel, probably). > > What is the expected throughput on Dom0 and DomU using 1 network card > in > > such case (roughly, at least, and the ratio) ? > > I made few basic tests with smbclient and ftp download and I am > getting > > around 18kb/s on Dom0 and 8kb/s on DomU, and I am suspicious about > that. > > What can be done to improve the throughput on both ? > > > > Zoran Popovic. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rhelv5-list mailing list > > [6][email protected] > > [7]https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > > > > > > > References > > > > Visible links > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > > 2. mailto:[email protected] > > 3. mailto:[email protected] > > 4. mailto:[email protected] > > 5. mailto:[email protected] > > 6. mailto:[email protected] > > 7. https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > > _______________________________________________ > > rhelv5-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list >
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
