Re: kvm network latency, higher with virtio ?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:47:07AM +0300, Dor Laor wrote: Hi! Thank you for explaining. > Measurements of older versions of virtio proved that we can cancel this > timer and achieve better latency while not hurting throughput. Well, I did try the patch Michael is suggesting here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/140 And I should say that in my testing environment not only the throughput doesn't decrease, but in some cases it grows (tested using netperf with udp-stream). > Vhost wouldn't use it. For the time being until be get vhost, we should > probably remove it from qemu. Yes please, check with your tests and consider this. Thank you, Luca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
kvm network latency, higher with virtio ?
Hi, I'm running some tests between two linux instances bridged together. If I try to ping 10 times I obtain the following results: -net nic,model=virtio -net tap : rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.756/0.967/2.115/0.389 ms -net nic,model=rtl8139 -net tap : rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.301/0.449/1.173/0.248 ms So it seems with virtio the latency is higher. Is it normal? The results I'm reporting were obtained with - host qemu-kvm 0.11-rc2 kvm-kmod-2.6.30.1 kernel: 2.6.30.5 (HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y as suggested in http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio ) - guest kernel: 2.6.31 but I also tested older versions always obtaining latency values at least two times higher than rtl8139/e1000 . Thank you, Luca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
vlan option is misleading, what about vnet ?
Hi qemu/kvm devels! I think vlan network option is misleading because it's about a virtual network and not 802.1Q . I'd like to rename it vnet (or something similar.. any ideas?) and then mark vlan option deprecated somehow. Is it ok for you? Thank you, luca -- Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein http://shammash.homelinux.org/ - http://www.artha.org/ - http://www.yue.it/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC] import native vde support from qemu
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:59 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Out of curiosity, do you actually use VDE for distributed ethernet or > just as an easy way to configure networking? I use VDE daily even for non virtual-machine purposes like low bandwidth vpns, ipv6 tunnel broker, network experiments (e.g.: wirefilter). > I actually liked the libpcap patch as a good trade-off of > performance/easy of use. I was under the impression that VDE is > actually rather slow. If you want an easy way to configure networking then have pcap support (or slirp) is definitively a better choice. What VDE gives you is flexibility. Thank you for your reply. luca -- Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein http://shammash.homelinux.org/ - http://www.artha.org/ - http://www.yue.it/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[RFC] import native vde support from qemu
Hi! Please can you consider to import in kvm-userspace the native vde support from qemu (svn revision 4896) ? This e-mail tries to explain a bit the current situation: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2008-07/msg00026.html Thank you! luca -- Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein http://shammash.homelinux.org/ - http://www.artha.org/ - http://www.yue.it/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
